Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson observed that again, a situation in Portland had dominated the outcome of a <br />statewide issue. She said by the time a 10-year study was complete, it would cost 20 to 50 times <br />as much to fix the streets as it would had they been fixed earlier. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey reminded the council that Oregon voters rejected a gasoline tax increase, providing <br />political cover for those legislators opposed to any fee increases. However, the legislature did <br />pass a $400 million package for transportation funding across the state, which many pointed to as <br />a major accomplishment given that nothing had been done by the past four legislatures. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson thought it regrettable that the legislative analysis did not recognize that, while <br />there might be some degree of revenue sharing, different cities were in different situations with <br />regard to transportation financing because, for example, a city that was a county seat had <br />different transportation needs due to its greater regional significance. The analysis also did not <br />take into account the age or condition of the streets. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's remarks, Mr. Meisner did not think the legislature had done any <br />actual analysis. He concurred as to the need to act jointly with Springfield, but wanted also to look <br />at metropolitan-wide options that included areas outside the city limits that would require the <br />concurrence of Lane County. He asked if the Board of County Commissioners had been <br />approached as to its interest. Mr. Carlson said that the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) <br />had discussed the issue in the past, and the County representatives had always been adamantly <br />opposed to a local gasoline tax. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner suggested that a Eugene-Springfield gasoline tax could be enacted by those cities, <br />but a metropolitan wide gasoline tax would require concurrence by the Board of County <br />Commissioners and the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. Mr. Johnson <br />said that might be one approach. Mr. Meisner emphasized his interest in creating a district that its <br />partners controlled, not the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Johnson said that the board <br />could impose the same tax as that imposed by Eugene and Springfield on the areas outside the <br />city limits and inside the urban growth boundary. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was not averse to a carefully crafted TUF that was equitable and tied to use. He said <br />that what the subcommittee recommended was tied to the household rather than the number of <br />people or cars in the household. He suggested that the fee could have a base charge as well as <br />a charge based on use or vehicles registered at the household address. If the charge was flat for <br />any household regardless of use, he would oppose it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked for a breakdown of reconstruction/rehabilitation costs in the $5.3 million <br />needed annually. Mr. Corey said he would research the answer to that question. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman concurred with the subcommittee's conclusions about the top funding priorities. She <br />had wanted the subcommittee to also consider how to redirect money from new road construction <br />projects to operations, maintenance, and preservation (OM&P) and wanted to see that analysis <br />before she supported a TUF or gasoline tax. She also wanted to ensure that any funding <br />mechanism be strictly tied to OM&P, with a strict prohibition against funding capacity <br />enhancements. She said reconstruction was frequently used as an opportunity to enhance <br />capacity and she wanted to ensure that the funding was not used for that purpose. <br /> <br /> MINUTE--Eugene City Council July 11, 2001 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />