My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 10/17/01 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2001
>
CC Minutes - 10/17/01 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:32:02 AM
Creation date
8/1/2005 1:53:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Nathanson pointed to the unincorporated areas which did not fall within the legal limits of the City, and <br />that those residents enjoyed the benefit of a lower tax rate and the same access to amenities. She questioned <br />if the City of Springfield would be willing to review a gas tax that would encompass a "service district" to <br />collect the tax over the urbanized area. Ms. Nathanson noted that staff had not addressed the question of <br />whether the gas tax was progressive, as it was based on fuel consumption. She also questioned that if a TUF <br />was considered in conjunction with a gas tax, additional thought should be given to the relative proportion of <br />each. Mr. Johnson pointed out that gas stations outside the City limits but within the urban growth boundary <br />numbered ten in Eugene and eight in Springfield. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stressed that roads should not be built if a deterioration of service in the existing transportation <br />system was to be ignored. With regard to the ITE manual, she questioned if the methodology of rates (i.e. <br />pass-by trip adjustments) would be consistent with those suggested by the Public Works Rates Advisory <br />Committee (PWRAC). Mr. Klein stated that the PWRAC methodology would be taken into account. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Rayor that a graduated fee should be applied with regard to categories of <br />residences and that she preferred a gas tax. She said that the more effective educational program was a <br />campaign. With regard to the motion, Ms. Bettman stated that the source of revenue should be dedicated to <br />OM&P and requested that such wording be included in the resolution so that the revenue could not be used <br />for other projects in later years. Mr. Johnson explained there were three ways with which to commit the <br />revenue to a specific purpose: (1) through resolution or ordinance; (2) gas tax and TUF approved by the <br />voters with specific commitment included in the ballot explanation; or (3) charter amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly stated that a combination of the TUF and the gas tax was the most attractive alternative as they <br />each affected different users. He pointed out that the City of Portland adopted a TUF administratively, which <br />resulted in a petition to refer the ordinance to voters and the response of the Portland City Council was to <br />withdraw it. Mr. Kelly opined it may be worthwhile to ascertain why that council acted as it did. He <br />concluded that he preferred the issue be put forth to the voters and additionally, that the best avenue for an <br />educational program was through a campaign. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Hill replied that eight Oregon cities had TUFs which were <br />enacted by council action. In reference to the Portland case, Mr. Hill explained that its council could not post <br />a ballot measure argument due to the referendum and therefore an educational program would be problematic. <br />Mr. Farr stated he preferred that this issue be put before the voters, as a campaign was the most effective <br />way to bring about education and involvement. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ cautioned that an additional burden should not be put on the taxpayers by the City taking <br />administrative action. He said that the issue should be put before the voters, and that he could not approve <br />the suggested motion without the development of an educational campaign to begin immediately. Mr. <br />Johnson said that staff had developed a three-page public relations plan if, in fact, the council wished to <br />proceed with a campaign. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the City should approach the County with the fact that <br />much of this problem was precipitated by policies it had implemented in the unincorporated areas of the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he would support an amendment that put the issue before the voters; however, he did not <br />believe a campaign was the most effective form of comprehensive education for the public. He referred to the <br />wording in the motion directed to the ITE manual as the basis for fee-setting, and said that the City was not <br />looking for progressive or use-based fees; rather, all single family dwellings would pay the same amount. <br /> <br />MINUTES- Eugene City Council Work Session October 17, 2001 Page 5 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.