CCMinutes - 01/28/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that the County commissioners had suggested a strong consideration for sharing the new revenue with the cities. He anticipated no more than a two-year agreement with the County at this point as the federal timber legislation from which the County Road Fund was derived was slated to expire in 2006 and the subsequent ability to provide this fund would depend on the reauthorization of the bill. Mr. Corey summarized the three formulas for funding distribution developed by County staff: the formula based on road miles within jurisdictions; a population-based formula; and a combination based on an average of the two. He conveyed the staff recommendation to support the latter as the cities of Springfield and Eugene would benefit most from the population-based formula, the outlying communities would benefit most from the formula based on road miles driven, and the formula that averaged the two was most likely to attain the greatest amount of support. Regarding the operating efficiency audit, Mr. Corey noted the specific areas that commissioners thought represented partnering opportunities with other jurisdictions, such as engineering costs, sign shops, and signal electricians. He said an audit had been conducted two years earlier within the City in order to improve efficiency, adding that the City did operate at the present time under a number of partnering agreements with Lane County and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). He felt there was no doubt that the City could conceivably benefit from taking this broader look and conveyed the staff recommendation that the City participate in the funding of an external review. Mr. Corey stated that the countywide gas tax and fee increases were outlined in Attachment E of the council packet. Mr. Meisner said it was true that the TSMF had been repealed at a time when there had been a push by the Chamber of Commerce and members of the Board of Commissioners to initiate a petition drive to repeal it. He remarked that the resulting gas tax was characterized by the Eugene Weekly as an unfair tax. He expressed interest in the countywide gas tax, but stressed that it had to be at a level that reimbursed the City for the amount it was receiving from its current gas tax. He also supported the countywide increase in vehicle registration fees, stating that it would "go a long way toward filling the gap." Mr. Meisner averred the formula for distribution of any countywide tax needed to be automatic and not a tax collected by only the County and distributed upon approval of an application for funds. Ms. Taylor was pleased by the cooperative atmosphere in the joint meeting of the County and its cities. She supported the formula that averaged miles driven and population base. She did not feel that more discussion was needed, but rather the County was seeking support from the City. She thought the populace would be more amenable to the vehicle registration fee increase than a TSMF and would support it on a ballot. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Taylor. He called the conversation regarding the shortfall in transportation funds "slow." He supported making a proposal to the board in order to make a strong statement. He approved of the first two staff recommendations, but felt the third one needed to be strengthened. Mr. Pap6 concurred with Mr. Meisner that a formula for funding allocation needed to be established ahead of time. He supported the countywide gas tax, but cautioned the council to take care that it did not exceed a threshold wherein voters would not support such a measure. Ms. Nathanson agreed with all three staff recommendations. She said it was important to keep talking with the County and to keep moving forward on the funding. She supported the direction that staff had taken on