Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />Ms. Solomon was not inclined to send the issue back to the Budget Committee, as she had been a member of <br />the Budget Citizen Subcommittee when it reviewed the issue and she believed any new subcommittee would <br />come to the same conclusion as the previous subcommittee. She still believed the transportation system <br />maintenance fee would have had the best success in addressing the problem over the long term and continued <br />to believe it was a good alternative. She was sorry it had not worked out. Ms. Solomon suggested the <br />council could craft a transportation system maintenance fee that met most of the needs that existed. She said <br />the transportation system was a utility as well as a key core service, and she did not think it was unreason- <br />able to charge such a fee. She questioned whether the council would be having the discussion if it had <br />retained the fee. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé 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 City <br />then had to pay for the cost of improving those roads. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé expressed interest in the information requested by Mr. Kelly, and said he would also like to know <br />the specific projects involved. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, 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. Papé 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 because <br />they were never brought up to City standards. She did not know the answer to the problem, but she agreed <br />that while the council needed to show leadership, a broader conversation was needed. She liked the idea of <br />reprioritizing the existing budget. She said that her ward had many low-income residents and she questioned <br />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. Papé, 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 something <br />along the lines of Option 3, with interest expressed in new revenue options not limited to the ones listed and <br />reprioritization of the budget to the degree possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to direct staff to look at Option 2 with a combina- <br />tion 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 recalled <br />that he supported the transportation system maintenance fee in its original form. When it was modified in <br />fall 2004, he no longer supported it. While that was not general purpose revenue, he thought it broad, <br />sustainable, and fair. He was not opposed to revisiting the issue. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />