CC Minutes - 10/17/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

throughout the metropolitan area and was pleased that representatives of the City of Springfield were present for this discussion. Mr. Kelly said that he would not support a TUF that did not distinguish between different types of residential use, and noted that staff had not provided an approach to address varying uses. He requested that possibilities such as a distinction between single- and multi-family use, number of vehicles registered at an address, square footage of a residence, and driving use be provided to the council. Mr. Kelly stressed the importance of the area's businesses contributing to this fee. In response to a question from Mr. Fart, Mr. Johnson reported that in initial discussions with the Springfield City Council, it did not reject the idea of a gas tax or TUF. Len Goodwin, Public Works Department/Springfield, reported that his department would address the Springfield City Council on November 13, with recommendations for alternative locally controlled revenue sources specific to transportation and that these recommendations would not be inconsistent with the discussions underway by the Eugene City Council. Mr. Fart pointed to the unanimous vote of the subcommittee on this issue and also stressed that the educational component would be integral to the process, and suggested the inclusion of cable television. In response to a question from Mr. Fart regarding the yield of a TUF, Mr. Corey replied that based upon preliminary projections, a TUF would realize approximately $3 - $4 per month per single-family residence. With regard to the protection of the infrastructure, Mr. Fart pointed out that if necessary repairs were not made, degradation would proceed rapidly. Mr. Rayor thanked the subcommittee and staff for an excellent presentation and said he was pleased with the consultants' reports. He asked that staff follow up on the deficiency items to the extent possible and report back to the council. Mr. Rayor said he preferred the TUF to the gas tax unless there was participation by the City of Springfield. In response to a question by Mr. Rayor regarding the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual as the basis for applying a TUF, Mr. Klein replied there were several trip-generation rates. Mr. Hill explained there were trip-generation rates for several residential types such as single family, mobile homes, duplexes, multi-family, and condos, and these rates did not account for size of homes or number of vehicles. Mr. Rayor said that a modified version of ITE should be considered to accommodate small homes. He referred to the article in The Register Guard which mentioned public involvement and opined that this media would be an excellent avenue to utilize during the education campaign. Mr. Rayor suggested that discussions on this issue should take place with other cities during the upcoming League of Cities conference. He also pointed out that the TUF was not unique to Eugene as other cities had selected this source of funding to address road needs. Mr. Pap~ thanked the subcommittee for its efforts in this project. He pointed out that the recommendation could be put before the voters and if they did not wish to proceed, the County and the State should be approached for other avenues of funding. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Hill replied that other cities had adopted the TUF administratively through an ordinance and such action had been widely accepted by constituents. Mr. Pap6 concluded that the educational program needed to proceed prior to any implementation. Ms. Taylor stated she was opposed to the TUF as it was not equitable. Additionally, she stated she could support a gas tax as it would include individuals from out-of-town and purchasers of gasoline. She concluded that putting pressure on the County and State was a good approach. MINUTES- Eugene City Council Work Session October 17, 2001 Page 4