Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Johnson said it was his intent that that component would be a major policy choice by the council at a later <br />time and that the ITE manual need not be used exclusively. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said he leaned toward the administrative approach for a TUF and that a gas tax should be voted on <br />countywide. In response to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding other taxes, Mr. Johnson replied that other <br />taxes could be used for street maintenance and that would be a policy choice for the council to discuss. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested that equitable sources of revenue be researched, other than property taxes, to address <br />this issue. She concluded she would not support the motion if the TUF was included. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct staff to develop and bring <br /> back for council approval a detailed plan, timeline, and major policy choices associated <br /> with implementation of the subcommittee transportation funding recommendation, <br /> including: <br /> <br />B. A transportation funding package consisting of a combination of local motor vehicle fuel tax and <br /> transportation utility fee, collaborating with the City of Springfield on the motor <br /> vehicle fuel tax, for the purpose of generating an additional $9 million (FY02 <br /> dollars) each year to address the City's transportation operations, maintenance, <br /> and preservation funding need, and; <br /> <br />C. The use of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual as one basis for the <br /> transportation utility fee with adjustments for different residential <br /> characteristics. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson requested further information on how the money would be used and questioned if <br />it would be possible to make progress in the sidewalk completion program through this fund, <br />including street lights. She requested that project lists, maps, and illustrations be provided to the <br />council and hence to the voters so that it would be clear where the funding would be used. Mr. <br />Johnson reminded the council that there were some transportation-related improvements that <br />may not be OM&P but also not related to an increase in capacity. He explained that the motion <br />drafted by Mr. Kelly provided flexibility and that the council would have ample time to fine-tune <br />language. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart stated he could support the motion and concurred that an educational program was <br />integral and that it would be important to provide videos and illustrations for the public. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap8 proposed an amendment to the motion, seconded by Mr. Fart, to <br /> immediately embark upon an educational program to educate the public on <br /> the operations, maintenance and preservation issues related to the City's <br /> transportation system, including streets, roads, bike paths, and pedestrian <br /> ways not to exceed $20,000.00. The amendment passed unanimously. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor proposed a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. PapS, that the <br /> main motion include a collaboration with Lane County on the motor vehicle <br /> fuel tax. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor pointed out that the only gas taxes attempted in the State had been County gas taxes, <br />not City gas taxes. He suggested that, given that the gas tax seemed to be problematic, the <br /> <br />MINUTES- Eugene City Council Work Session October 17, 2001 Page 6 <br /> <br /> <br />