Laserfiche WebLink
the surcharge if there was a guarantee that the funds collected would be used exclusively for residential <br />streets, but was unwilling to place the burden on garbage haulers to support the entire transportation <br />infrastructure. He also saw no relationship between street usage and the amount of garbage that was hauled. <br /> <br />Councilor Brown stated that he initially supported the surcharge, but had since developed doubts. He was <br />most concerned about the impact on school districts. He asked how much the gas tax would need to be <br />increased to generate $900,000 annually. Mr. Corey replied that an increase of approximately 1.5 cents <br />would generate that amount. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon remarked that the subcommittee had recommended a comprehensive funding package <br />with five components, but had not been able to garner enough support on the council for most of them. She <br />said during the subcommittee’s discussions the issue was raised that some vehicles could not be charged <br />because they already paid a weight/mile tax. She asked which vehicles paid that tax. Mr. Corey responded <br />that trucks over a certain size all paid the state weight/mile tax, including garbage haulers. Eugene received <br />approximately $2 million dollars annually from that tax. He said the issue was not that the other trucks <br />could not be charged, but rather that the surcharge related to more frequent use of the transportation system. <br />He said imposing a fee on all large trucks would appear to be a vehicle licensing fee and that was not within <br />the City’s authority; the County would need to enact such a funding mechanism. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor mentioned that part of the challenge of transportation system funding was that there were <br />funding options that could be implemented at the County level, but the County had been unwilling to discuss <br />enacting those revenue mechanisms. He noted that those options could help to resolve transportation <br />funding for jurisdictions throughout Lane County. He urged residents to persuade county commissioners to <br />engage in that conversation with cities. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Pryor and noted that the subcommittee had made that recommen- <br />dation to the County, which had not acted upon it. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark commented that a ten-cent gas tax for two months could generate enough revenue to solve <br />the problem. <br /> <br />4. PUBLIC HEARING <br /> An Ordinance Concerning Wastewater and Stormwater Service and Amending Sections 6.411 <br /> and 6.421 of the Eugene Code, 1971 <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules for providing testimony. <br /> <br />Jared Mason-Gere <br />, Willamette Street, Eugene, representing the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, stated that <br />members supported the proposed ordinance amendment. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing. There were no comments from councilors. <br /> <br />5. PUBLIC HEARING <br /> Resolution 4971 Approving the Issuance of Additional Revenue Bonds by the Metropolitan <br /> Wastewater Management Commission; and Providing an Effective Date <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing. He noted there was no one wishing to testify and closed the <br />hearing. He called for comments from councilors. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 8 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />