CC Minutes - 05/23/07 Work Session

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Ms. Ortiz also wished to thank the subcommittee and staff for their work. She intended to support all of the funding recommendations but she wanted to discuss them separately. She averred that it was time to move ahead to work on the backlog of transportation maintenance and preservation. Ms. Bettman related that the subcommittee had reached consensus in its desire to not use General Fund money for the backlog. She noted that the concerns her colleagues brought up had all been discussed by the subcommittee. Regarding the gas tax, she agreed with Mr. Zelenka that it was akin to a carbon tax. She averred that it would hit commuters as well as residents. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to separate the motion for today’s meeting so the council could consider each taxing/fee mechanism separately. The vote was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Poling voting in favor; Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Clark, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the mo- tion and the motion passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Poling asked how the second mechanism, a utility fee based on parking spaces, would be implemented. Mr. Corey replied that the subcommittee generally conceded that there was no inventory of parking spaces. He believed it would apply to residential parking and non-residential parking. Mr. Poling surmised that the average household would pay $60 per year for this fee. He asked how many times he would have to pay for the parking spaces in front of his house “before they were paid off.” He added that it may be time to see if the County would work with the City to pass a vehicle registration fee. Ms. Solomon wished to respond to the issue raised that the subcommittee’s proposal did not provide a curb- to-curb solution. She said as a group the subcommittee had compromised and decided to take a look at the transportation system as a whole. She added that the subcommittee discussed at length different ways of imposing fees on heavy vehicles and determined that there was not a practical way to do so. She related that a lot of the heavy delivery trucks come from out of the area. She thought it could have been captured with the transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) because it had been based on trip generation. Mr. Pryor found the discussion to be interesting. He reiterated that there were elements in the proposal that he did not like and would prefer not to do. He underscored that the proposal contained the funding mechanisms that had garnered enough votes to pass. He said it was what they could do as opposed to what they “preferred to do.” Mr. Pryor noted that the only heavy vehicles that could be easily identified and assessed were the garbage haulers. He underscored that garbage haulers drove on every street of the City and worked every day. Mr. Pryor said while curb-to-curb repairs were important and he supported this approach, he had to give on that idea. He encouraged his colleagues to be flexible as well. Mr. Clark reiterated his contention that some money should be drawn from the General Fund. Mr. Zelenka commented that with a looming multi-million dollar deficit he was not willing to take money from the General Fund. He assured his colleagues that the transportation funding addressed the concerns regarding curb-to-curb repairs. He said if the package was exclusively curb-to-curb it would be “no deal” at the subcommittee level. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2007 Page 4 Work Session