My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 5: Ratification of IGR Actions of Feb. 27, and Mar. 6, 2013
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2013
>
CC Agenda - 03/11/13 Meeting
>
Item 5: Ratification of IGR Actions of Feb. 27, and Mar. 6, 2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2013 1:43:52 PM
Creation date
3/8/2013 1:30:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
3/11/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
We fight for every flight we have at the Eugene Airport to meet the air travel needs of our <br />community. The current state aircraft fuel tax for jet fuel is one cent per gallon. A two-cent <br />increase to three cents per gallon may seem small, however, given the highly competitive <br />nature of the commercial airline industry, it would likely result in a reduction of existing <br />commercial air service at the Eugene Airport. In addition, it would act as a deterrent for airlines <br />to add additional seat capacity, new nonstop routes, or for a new airline to enter the Eugene <br />market. <br /> <br />Air service development is a high priority at the Eugene Airport. In our recent negotiations to <br />bring Frontier Airlines to the Eugene Airport, airline property managers looked very closely at <br />every cost that would be incurred to operate at EUG. This included the price of fuel provided <br />through the supplier on the field. Under this amended legislation, the fuel supplier would pass <br />on the increased jet fuel tax to the airlines. A higher jet fuel tax would definitely be a red flag for <br />airlines considering operation at any of the commercial airports across the state. <br />Unlike most industries in which personnel costs are the largest expense, fuel costs are the <br />largest expense for airlines, accounting for approximately 35% of overall expenses. Volatile and <br />high fuel costs over the past decade have played a pivotal role in the bankruptcies of several <br />airlines and most surviving airlines continue to operate at a deficit. Those airlines that are <br />profitable operate at extremely close margins and decisions on which markets to serve are <br />based almost solely on yield comparisons with competing markets. <br /> <br />According to Airlines 4 America, every penny increase in the price of a gallon of jet fuel drives <br />an additional $180 million in annual fuel costs for U.S. airlines. Even a price of one dollar higher <br />over the course of one year would translate to about $18 billion more in operating expenses. <br />Airlines are already subject to a federal commercial fuel tax of 4.3 cents per gallon of jet fuel, in <br />addition to other federal transportation taxes. These taxes fund the federal Airport and Airways <br />Trust fund, the main funding source for the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA’s Airport <br />Improvement Program, in turn, provides funding for infrastructure improvements, which do <br />directly benefit commercial service airports and airlines. <br /> Recommendation: Oppose (as amended). <br /> <br />HB 2890 <br />: Repeals provision that prevents local governments from imposing conditions on <br />approved permits that effectively establish sales price for residential development <br />or limit purchase to class or group of purchasers. <br /> <br />Relating to: Relating to affordable housing <br /> <br />Sponsored by: Representative Frederick, Representative Gomberg, Representative Jenson, <br />Representative Keny-Guyer, Representative Vega Pederson, Representative <br />Williamson <br /> <br />Staff Comments: Eliminates prohibition that prevents local governments from adopting <br />requirements addressing housing affordability, such as inclusionary zoning. Enables cities to <br />make local decisions whether to pursue such measures addressing housing affordability <br />requirements.• This is a ban on inclusionary zoning for affordable housing. The Housing <br />Alliance supports it. This is a matter of local control. <br /> Recommendation: Priority 1 Support <br /> <br /> <br />HB 2926 <br />:Requires certain municipal utilities to return surplus earnings to counties in which <br />customers in unincorporated communities reside in same circumstances and at <br />2 | Page <br />March 6, 2013 IGR Committee Meeting <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.