CC Minutes - 05/23/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

With regard to the gas tax component, Mr. Corey related that it was generally perceived to be a mechanism that had worked well over the previous four years and that it was easy to implement administratively. He noted that the three- to five-cent differential between the City of Eugene and surrounding communities had not been perceived as resulting in market flight. Mr. Pryor commented that phasing in a problem that cost $15 million per year would ultimately increase the cost. Regarding income, he related that the subcommittee discussed a number of mitigations. He noted that if the council chose a parking space basis for a utility fee there could be mitigations of the required spaces. He said the subcommittee wanted to get the basic package together and assumed that details would be worked out through the process. He understood that the gas tax would be controversial; people would be unhappy with an eight-cent-per-gallon tax. He underscored that if the council chose to reduce the increase, the cost would have to be shifted to another funding mechanism. Mr. Zelenka agreed that phasing in the proposal would make the problem bigger, but he believed that it did have “sort of a natural phase in” because the work would have to occur incrementally. Regarding the gas tax, he believed that this was a proxy for a carbon tax which he strongly supported. He pointed out that people could keep from paying the tax by walking and bicycling more. Mr. Clark thanked the subcommittee members for their work. His chief concern was that though the council would want the residents to see the proposal as a package they would most likely perceive it as “five new taxes.” He felt the council needed to address citizen distrust by reducing the amount of the gas tax and adding a component from the General Fund. Mr. Poling conveyed his appreciation for the subcommittee’s work. He acknowledged the need for a funding source for the growing problem of transportation infrastructure maintenance and preservation. However, he said, he would be hard-pressed to support anything that had not been put to a vote of city residents. He predicted that an increase in the gas tax ran the risk of voter repeal. He felt the amount of money the gas tax increase would bring in could be added to the local option levy. Mr. Poling recalled that when he campaigned in 2002, he had heard numerous complaints about the potholes in city streets. He said he wanted all along to provide curb-to-curb repairs, but the proposal would address the street, bicycle paths, and trees. He felt people were saying they wanted better streets and because of this it would be hard for him to support anything but curb-to-curb repairs. He believed that without the gas tax included, the package would cost approximately $171 per year for the average household. He added that he felt singling out waste haulers as a funding mechanism was not fair. Ms. Taylor said she had suggested that the subcommittee “keep in touch” with the council and let the council know what they were considering. She asserted that otherwise they ran the risk of having the council oppose all of the elements of the package. She supported separating the five funding components for consideration. Ms. Taylor observed that there was no tax for commuters in the package. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that it included a street utility fee. Ms. Taylor thought a vehicle registration fee would be most fair. She acknowledged that it was not within the City’s purview to institute such a fee. She thought the City should address it on a “bigger level” in order to work to change the legislation so that the City would be allowed to institute a fee. She added her support for discussing the five funding mechanisms in the package separately. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2007 Page 3 Work Session