CC Minutes - 04/08/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Poling’s earlier statements regarding the garbage hauler surcharge and similarly noted that she might be more supportive of the measure if it were opened up to include other types of large vehicles. Mr. Zelenka asked for a status update on the street utility fee that the council subcommittee had recently recommend- ed. Mr. Corey replied that staff had recently met with representatives from EWEB to discuss a street utility fee and that some of the people involved in that meeting had been concerned such a fee might add an additional line to EWEB utility bills. He noted that further discussions with EWEB and the City Council would be necessary to determine the feasibility of such a strategy. Mr. Zelenka said he was concerned that the strategies being discussed did not appear to be part of a comprehensive package of transportation funding solutions that he had moved forward as part of the Council Committee on Transportation Systems Funding (CCTSF). He further commented that absent a more comprehensive strategy he would be willing to support the short-term solutions being recommended. Mr. Zelenka, responding to earlier comments by Mr. Poling and Ms. Ortiz, noted from his work with the CCTSF that the nexus between garbage trucks and the City’s transportation system was unique in that garbage trucks were not restricted from traveling down residential streets as many other large vehicles were. Mr. Pryor was frustrated by the lack of options presented by staff as a result of their following the council’s direction and noted that, while difficult, it would be important to continue the conversation about the best ways in which to reprioritize the use of the City’s general fund. Ms. Taylor expressed that any funds to address the O&M budget gaps should come out of the City’s general fund, and felt that the garbage hauler surcharge represented an unfair and unduly burdensome business privilege fee and that certain people might choose to discontinue their garbage collection service rather than have their fees increased. She noted that she might be more in favor of the surcharge if single family residences could somehow be exempted or if the garbage haulers could be made to pay the cost of the surcharge without passing the costs along to their customers. Ms. Taylor worried that the solid waste hauler surcharge was being misunderstood as a new property tax by certain members of the public and noted that she had received several calls in that regard. Ms. Solomon concurred with Ms. Taylor that any funds to address the O&M budget gaps should come out of the City’s general fund and further supported Mr. Pryor’s comment that it would be important to continue the conversa- tion about the best ways in which to reprioritize the use of the City’s general fund. Ms. Solomon noted that she would not be in favor of any vehicle surcharge that might exempt certain portions of area school districts. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, noted that the $500,000 for the Urban Forestry Program, listed in Attachment D under the summary of Road Fund services likely to be eliminated, was not the total funding for the Urban Forestry Program but rather represented the portion of the program devoted to street trees. Mr. Corey, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Solomon, noted that the motion proposed by staff would only call for the re-purposing of wastewater/stormwater fees and not for any increases in those fees them- selves. He noted that there were no specific rate increases associated with staff’s recommendation. Ms. Solomon was skeptical that the re-purposing of wastewater/stormwater funds would not eventually lead to rate increases. Mr. Brown asked if it might be necessary to have conversations regarding the staff’s recommendations included as part of the City’s budget committee meetings also. He noted that he was inclined to support the staff recommenda- tions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 8, 2009 Page 3 Work Session