CC Minutes - 02/18/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon echoed remarks about the importance of educating the public. She asked why the proposed surcharge was almost double what the subcommittee had recommended and what next steps the council should be considering. Mr. Zelenka commented that the State’s gas tax was last increased in 1993. He said that revenue was declining, as was other revenue from the County, State and federal levels while at the same time material and labor costs were increasing. Given that help would not be forthcoming from either the State or federal governments, he said funding solutions would have to be found at the local level. He stressed that the bond measure addressed only a small percentage of the backlog of road maintenance projects. He said most of the City’s revenue was subject to restrictions on how it was used, in part because the public insisted that certain funds be used for certain purposes, typically related to how the revenue was generated. Ms. Piercy wanted to see a clear direction for solving the entire transportation funding problem, not just pieces of it; that would require a conversation with regional partners. She was not certain how to deal with the immediate short-term funding needs, but felt the public wanted to see what package of long-term solutions the council would propose. Mr. Clark thought the public did not clearly perceive the differences between O&M and preservation institutional deficits, which complicated the council’s efforts to find solutions. He said it was a problem not only of communication, but also of priorities, and the community needed to discuss that as part of solving long-term problems. He was not interested in a garbage surcharge at a time when people were struggling financially. He felt a gas tax was the most equitable approach; a creative approach might be a large, short- term increase instead of a permanent increase at a lower rate. Mr. Pryor remarked that there were two core concepts: increasing revenue or scaling back services. He said any of the options for increasing revenue ultimately took money from the pockets of local residents and it was essential to clearly demonstrate the need and benefits to obtain public support. He underscored the need for a permanent source of funding to preserve and maintain the transportation system and the importance of involving the public in that discussion. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Pryor about the need for a permanent solution as the City could not cut or reprioritize its way out of the problem; it was too large and long-standing. He said funding solutions should demonstrate a nexus with street use, have low administrative costs, capture non-resident usage, reduce greenhouse gases and consist of a package of options, not one funding source. He supported a gas tax and garbage hauler fee. He would lower the garbage surcharge to $1 per month and felt that amount would not cause people to halt their garbage service. Ms. Solomon asked for additional information about a potential transportation summit. Ms. Piercy said there had been discussion about the need for a summit to discuss the broader issues of transportation for the entire region, including transit. She agreed that some of the funds for transportation came with restrictions on use and those could not be changed by the City. Regarding prioritization, she noted that much of the General Fund was used for public safety and many other services important to the livability of the community were also supported by General Fund dollars. She said to this point the public had indicated a desire to have a basic level of service in those areas and there would need to be a discussion of tradeoffs if funds were diverted to the transportation system. She reminded the public that the bond measure included an audit process to assure accountability. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 18, 2009 Page 3 Work Session