CC Minutes - 07/11/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap8 asked how much the City anticipated in road funds from Lane County. Mr. Carlson said that the City anticipated approximately $1.235 million through the current year only. The new Federal legislation provided the County funding for a period of six years. Mr. Pap8 asked Ms. Mulder to discuss market flight if a gasoline tax was imposed. Ms. Mulder said that the subcommittee felt that two cents was within the current pricing variations that existed locally, and the subcommittee did not think the tax would have a significant market flight effect. Mr. Pap8 endorsed Mr. Holbo's remarks about the need for an education program and asked for some further staff work on that issue. He asked if any polling on the subject had been done. Mr. Carlson said not recently. Mr. Pap8 thought, given that a gasoline tax was likely to be referred, public education would be very important. Mr. Kelly thanked the subcommittee members for their work and to staff for its support. He thought the anticipated external studies were key to the issue of needed public education. He was glad Springfield was represented at the meeting and said that the two communities shared a system with the same factors affecting it. He thought that there was opportunity for cooperation from several standpoints. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman about the subcommittee priorities. He noted that Appendix B in the meeting packet included some other options, and he wanted the council to have a clear discussion about the priorities before it determined an amount for funding the OM&P backlog. He agreed with a statement made earlier by Ms. Mulder that the road system benefitted all citizens, not just those with cars. Mr. Kelly thought it important to have both a TUF and a gasoline tax as he thought the two approaches complemented each other. With regard to the TUF, Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Meisner, saying he needed to see some variation in the approach taken to households, particularly single-family and multi-family dwellings, not a "one size fits all" approach. He noted that some cities use household square footage as a rough correlation to use, and multi-unit developments were assessed differently. He requested some different methodology ideas and data from staff. Mr. Farr thanked the subcommittee for its work. He said that he was a long way away from voting to support a tax or TUF, although he recognized the need. He suggested that the City look at the equity of both recommendations and factor in where the street degradation actually occurred. Mr. Farr asked how the City may be able to charge for degradation to the road way created by such vehicles as Lane Transit District (LTD) buses and heavy trucks. He said the TUF was another tax on families, who were already overtaxed. Regarding Councilor Bettman's concern about the dedication of money to OM&P, he wanted the council to recognize that extra capacity may be needed to reduce further degradation of the system. Ms. Taylor asked how much the community would receive from the State because of the passage of the $400 million package. Mr. Carlson said that the Oregon Transportation Commission would make that determination. Mr. Johnson added there was no formula basis attached to the legislation; it included an application process. Mr. Carlson said that the legislature's intent was to fund capacity-increasing projects. Mayor Torrey clarified that about 50 percent of the funds would be directed to bridge repairs, and he thought it most likely smaller cities would receive the largest share of the money available. Ms. Taylor was opposed to a TUF, saying it would be a difficult fee for many poor families to pay. She said that while the roads served all citizens, some contributed to road deterioration more than others and she wanted to capture those costs. She thought that a TUF would be referred and that MINUTE--Eugene City Council July 11, 2001 Page 4 Work Session