Laserfiche WebLink
Scott Bales <br />, Airport Road, Eugene, noted that Lane Transit District (LTD) operated more vehicles at <br />greater frequency on residential streets than did garbage haulers. He said there were other heavy trucks <br />using streets, but garbage haulers had been selected for the road repair tax because they had a billing system <br />in place that covered most of the City and there was a perception that garbage trucks did more damage to the <br />streets. He said there were more effective utilities, such as Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), for <br />collection of a tax as more households and businesses had EWEB meters than had garbage service. He said <br />the road repair tax was double taxation because garbage haulers already collected taxes for the County and <br />City. As an example of double taxation, he used an Albertson’s store that currently paid $94.55 to truck <br />garbage to the landfill and once it was there paid another $35.05 to Lane County Solid Waste for the landfill <br />and $29.95 for a system benefit charge. When the new surcharge went into effect it would increase the cost <br />of trucking by almost $5.00 per haul. <br /> <br />Robert Tallman <br />, Chevy Chase Street, Eugene, commented that some people would discontinue their <br />garbage service and dump garbage alongside roads or put it in yard debris cans. He said the surcharge was <br />a road tax, not a garbage surcharge because it had nothing to do with garbage; it related to road mainten- <br />ance. He agreed that the City needed funds to maintain and repair roads and suggested that the council <br />consider another gas tax, but this time gain the community’s support. <br /> <br />Amanda Dalton <br />, Lake Oswego, Oregon, representing the Northwest Grocery Association, said members <br />were aware of the City’s need for road repair funds and understood the struggles facing cities trying to <br />address serious transportation needs with dwindling dollars. She said the association was committed to <br />supporting jurisdictions in their road funding needs and agreed with Public Works Director Kurt Corey’s <br />proposal of short-term transfers in lieu of a ten percent garbage surcharge utility fee, but remained <br />concerned about the proposed five percent surcharge. She said the surcharge would result in over $180 per <br />month in new taxes for the association’s largest members and the greatest concern with the fee was that it <br />was not part of a comprehensive transportation funding package. She said the surcharge, coupled with a <br />street utility fee based on parking spaces that was under discussion, could result in a significant financial <br />burden on stores. She urged the council to enact one package to address the City’s transportation needs, but <br />if the surcharge was approved it should be a temporary measure with a one-year sunset to allow for a more <br />comprehensive approach to be developed. <br /> <br />Jared Mason-Gere <br />, Willamette Street, Eugene, representing the Chamber of Commerce, thanked the <br />council and staff for their efforts to identify transportation system funding; however, the chamber member- <br />ship was opposed to the proposed surcharge and believed it was contrary to the City’s desire to support <br />businesses and retain existing jobs. He commended the process related to Bond Measure 2145 to address <br />road repairs and said members would be supportive of similar efforts. <br /> <br />Rich Gaston <br />, Wisconsin Street, Eugene, Ward 6, did not object to the design of the tax, but had concerns <br />with how the City prioritized its spending and its need to build trust with taxpayers. He felt there were <br />adequate funds existing to maintain roads, but leadership to make the difficult decisions to rebalance <br />spending across the various priorities was lacking. He noted that the City had purchased a fleet of hand- <br />powered bicycles for people to borrow and the use of Toyota Prius vehicles by City employees. He agreed <br />with the goals behind those purchases, but not with the decision to prioritize those purchases ahead of <br />maintaining roads. It was disingenuous to spend lavishly on pet projects and then come to taxpayers and ask <br />for additional funds to pay for this basic City service. He recommended the City, in order to restore trust <br />and build sustainable support for new taxes: 1) demonstrate it took seriously ongoing budget balancing by <br />resizing the City’s head count and benchmarking it against other cities its size, 2) follow through on the <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 6 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />