CC Minutes - 02/18/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Corey estimated the monthly assessments for standard residential customers at $1.44 for the combined right-of-way use fee and $1.97 for the garbage surcharge. He reminded the council that the recent bond measure was very prescriptive in terms of how those funds could be used on specific road projects; O&M costs were excluded. He said federal economic stimulus funds could be available for capital preservation and transportation enhancement, but it also excluded O&M as a use, and legislative action on transportation funding was uncertain. Ms. Piercy assured the public that the council was committed to road repairs and preservation of the investment represented by the transportation system. She said traditional funding for road preservation was no longer available and cities across the State faced the same problem with lack of resources. She welcomed the opportunity to discuss all options before moving forward. Mr. Clark indicated he was willing to consider all options. He saw the O&M funding gap as a short-term problem in the current year that had to be addressed, but solving the long-term institutionalized O&M deficit by increasing revenues should be delayed until later in the year when there was a greater sense of what was happening in the local economy and how the City could respond to those conditions. He said the recent bond measure carried the implicit message that the City would prove worthy of the public’s trust in how it used those funds. He felt the City should earn some of that trust before trying to solve the systemic deficit. Ms. Taylor liked the concept of shifting some funds to O&M if the City received economic stimulus funds for preservation projects. She objected to the garbage haulers fee and felt it would discourage people from having garbage service. She thought the City should provide garbage service. She said the right-of-way fee sounded like a transportation utility fee. She said the General Fund should support street maintenance and if all the tax exemptions were halted funds would be available. She noted that many users of the transporta- tion system were not local residents and there should be at least a county-wide revenue source, such as a vehicle registration fee. She hoped that cities could collaborate on a regional funding mechanism. Mr. Pryor remarked that the conversation about long-term, stable and secure transportation system funding needed to include the public. He recognized the need to move more quickly to fill the 2010 funding gap. He noted that the subcommittee had agreed that a combination of funding solutions would be needed and he was willing to consider a range of options including a solid waste fee at some level, structural cuts and a transportation utility fee, which other communities were already using. He stressed the importance of involving the public in the discussion of long-term solutions. Mr. Poling said, based on inquiries he had received, it appeared the general public was still somewhat confused about transportation system funding and did not understand why there was still a shortfall when a bond measure had been passed in November 2008. He said ongoing education was an important part of involving the public. He would not support a surcharge on garbage haulers as it singled out one industry unfairly when other heavy vehicles were using the roads. He said a surcharge should be more broadly distributed. Mr. Brown asked about the financial impact of a garbage hauler surcharge on businesses. Mr. Corey replied that commercial service was typically a 2- or 3-yard container. The monthly rate for a 2-cubic yard container was $127.20 and for a 3-cubic yard container was $186; monthly surcharges would be $12.72 and $18.60 respectively. He said the estimated monthly surcharge for a typical “big box” store would be $288 and for a medium-sized commercial store it would be $55. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 18, 2009 Page 2 Work Session