Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Mulder expressed appreciation that representatives of Springfield were present for the <br />discussion given people's hesitance to support a gasoline tax that was not levied in both <br />communities. She pointed out, however, that the differential in gasoline prices in the community <br />was greater than the two cents per gallon tax recommended by the subcommittee, lessening the <br />risk of market flight. <br /> <br />Ms. Mulder invited remarks from other subcommittee members. <br /> <br />Mr. Holbo thanked staff for its work and especially for the work done by City Engineer Les Lyle. <br />He noted the long-time duration of the road funding issue. Mr. Holbo spoke to the fact that there <br />was considerable misunderstanding on the part of the general public about the way street <br />construction and maintenance were funded in Eugene. He suggested that a considerable <br />educational effort lay ahead. He further noted his belief that successful passage of a gasoline tax <br />required the support and participation of Springfield. <br /> <br />Mr. Mulligan spoke of the education about street conditions the subcommittee had received and of <br />the deteriorating status of Eugene streets. He said that in many cases, the only option remaining <br />was reconstruction. Mr. Mulligan said the subcommittee's recommendation was modeled in part <br />on how the infrastructure underlying the streets was paid for. He emphasized the thoughtful and <br />thorough character of the subcommittee's discussions. <br /> <br />Mr. Corey provided background on the two independent studies requested by the subcommittee, <br />noting that the first analysis mentioned by Ms. Mulder was expected in July, and the second <br />analysis was expected in September. <br /> <br />Springfield Public Works Technical Services Manager Len Goodwin said that Springfield staff <br />planned to go to its City Council in September with a process similar to that Eugene was going <br />through. He expected the Springfield staff recommendations to be very similar to those of the <br />Budget Citizen Subcommittee. He said that the Springfield council had expressed strong interest <br />in collaboration with the Eugene council because of concern it would be imprudent for either city <br />to embark on a course of action inconsistent with the actions of the other. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson said the issue of transportation funding was a long-time issue for the community and <br />it was essential that the community obtain a locally controlled source of funding to address its <br />needs. He noted the recent adoption of a transportation utility fee by the City of Portland that took <br />effect on July 5. He noted the legislature's debate on a bill precluding the local imposition of such <br />fees. While that bill did not make it out of legislative committee, he anticipated similar efforts in <br />the future at the legislature or through the initiative process. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson requested more information about the State legislature's thinking, particularly <br />since it was not willing to increase transportation funding. Had the State determined the road <br />system was in good condition and did not need to be improved? Mr. Carlson suggested that the <br />legislature's discussion was not actually focused on the condition of the road system. Mayor <br />Torrey said that the transportation fee imposed in Portland was not liked by some in the <br />legislature. He said that those opposing additional fees had called for a ten-year study of <br />transportation issues across the state, which would further delay a resolution. He suggested the <br />council needed to communicate with the public clearly about the condition of the road system to <br />provide the education mentioned by Mr. Holbo. <br /> <br /> MINUTE--Eugene City Council July 11, 2001 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />