Laserfiche WebLink
<br />system maintenance fee would have had the best success in addressing the problem over the long term and <br />continued to believe it was a good alternative. She was sorry it had not worked out. Ms. Solomon <br />suggested the council could craft a transportation system maintenance fee that met most of the needs that <br />existed. She said the transportation system was a utility as well as a key core service, and she did not <br />think it was unreasonable to charge such a fee. She questioned whether the council would be having the <br />discussion if it had retained the fee. <br /> <br />Mr. Pape said that a lot of the City's problems in regard to road funding arose from the City's assumption <br />of responsibility for roads that were constructed to County standards rather than urban standards. The <br />City then had to pay for the cost of improving those roads. <br /> <br />Mr. Pape expressed interest in the information requested by Mr. Kelly, and said he would also like to <br />know the specific projects involved. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pape, Mr. Corey said that he would not characterize it as the norm <br />across the country, but assigning franchise fees to municipally owned utilities was not unusual. <br /> <br />Mr. Pape endorsed Mr. Pryor's suggestion for more citizen input into the question of new revenues. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said many streets in her ward were not well-maintained and many were severely degraded <br />because they were never brought up to City standards. She did not know the answer to the problem, but <br />she agreed that while the council needed to show leadership, a broader conversation was needed. She <br />liked the idea of reprioritizing the existing budget. She said that her ward had many low-income residents <br />and she questioned whether they could afford the improvements needed to their wards. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz informed Ms. Taylor that her ward would be happy to take her street light. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Pape, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. <br />The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said he was not hearing support for Option 1. He believed the council was discussing <br />something along the lines of Option 3, with interest expressed in new revenue options not limited to the <br />ones listed and reprioritization of the budget to the degree possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Pape, moved to direct staff to look at Option 2 with a combi- <br />nation of revenue opportunities, including the listed ones or others. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said because the motion included the potential for new fees, he could not support it. He <br />recalled that he supported the transportation system maintenance fee in its original form. When it was <br />modified in fall 2004, he no longer supported it. While that was not general purpose revenue, he thought <br />it broad, sustainable, and fair. He was not opposed to revisiting the issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Pape offered a friendly amendment, accepted by the maker of the motion, to add to the motion that <br />staff come back within three months with a list of the new proj ects in the Capital Improvement Program <br />funded with money that could have been used for operations, preservation, and maintenance. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said if staff was dependent on a motion, one should have been provided to the council. The <br /> <br />MINUTES-Eugene City Council <br />Work Session <br /> <br />September 26, 2005 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br />