CC Minutes - 06/15/11 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling recalled that he had asked that a work session be scheduled on the local gas tax if the State legislature took action to increase the State gas tax. He wanted to know if the council was interested in referring the gas tax to the public. He acknowledged his constituents were divided on the topic. At the request of Mr. Farr, Mr. Corey reviewed the actions taken by the council in regard to the gas tax and reiterated that the two -cent increase adopted in 2005 was subject to the sunset. Mr. Farr observed that he had heard from people who expected the two -cent increase to sunset. He did not minimize the progress that had been made with the tax proceeds but was curious about why the council voted to eliminate the sunset. Mr. Zelenka attributed the council's removal of the sunset to the action taken by the legislature. Mr. Zelenka determined from Mr. Corey that the $135 million preservation backlog would not be eliminated by current rates of spending. Mr. Zelenka suggested that even doubling the spending would not eliminate the backlog for improved streets given how long the problem had been neglected. He also noted the backlog of unimproved streets. Mr. Corey estimated it would require $90 million to address that backlog. Mr. Zelenka preferred to retain the gas tax at its current rate given the need that existed. He continued to support a transportation utility fee as an additional means to address the backlog and make progress on it as opposed to "treading water." Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Zelenka. She wanted to maintain the current gas tax until another funding source was found. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the public did not vote on the sunset; the sunset had been imposed by the council. She believed the money for street preservation should come from the General Fund but she acknowledged that find was not in any condition to accept the cost. She was pleased Fund 131 was balanced. Ms. Taylor asked about the cost of stolen street signs. Mr. Corey did not have a figure. He acknowledged that such thefts were a growing problem. He said that signs were replaced as staff could get them to them, and confirmed the City had a budget for sign replacement. Ms. Taylor asked what penalties existed for the theft of a street sign. Mr. Poling suggested the theft of a street sign was a misdemeanor unless there was a traffic control situation compounded by the loss of the sign, in which case the penalty would be stiffer. Mr. Pryor recalled that the condition of the community's streets had been one of his major issues when he joined the council and he was pleased at the progress that had been made. He suggested the council had made commitments it needed to consider when considering the amount of the local gas tax. He contrasted the council's commitment to the sunset of the two -cent increase against its commitment to improve the roads. He believed that if the council maintained its commitment to the sunset that action would jeopardize its ability to maintain its commitment to road preservation. Mr. Pryor acknowledged the council's lack of alternative revenue sources. He appreciated the concerns of those who objected to the fact the council made the additional two cents permanent. He did not know what would happen if the council referred the increase to the public. However, Mr. Pryor was reluctant to give up the additional funding and, like Mr. Poling, was curious about other councilors' positions. Ms. Ortiz said she had heard nothing about the gas tax from her constituents and attributed that to the relatively small amount of the tax in contrast with the high price of gasoline. She did not think that residents were leaving her ward to buy gas in other communities. Ms. Ortiz commended Mr. Corey for the adjustments he made to the City's approach to road improvements, particularly regarding the scale of the improvements that were built. The City was now MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 15, 2011 Page 2 Work Session