CC Minutes - 02/27/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

revised so that it would not be perceived as a tax. Mr. Corey pointed out there were a list of services provided through the Road Fund that the revenues cannot adequately provide. He explained that an individual assessment to cover this type of service could be a per service charge or something more sophisticated. Mr. Pryor acknowledged that the motion put before the council was a creative funding strategy; however, as a citizen he did not favor such a plan. Rather, he said he favored a system such as the TSMF with specific oversight. Mr. Kelly commented that one fee after another was not the manner in which to fund general purpose government services. He said the broader-based the fee, the broader-based the tax. Mr. Kelly reminded staff that he supported the TSMF initially and would support it in the future if it were brought to the council in a similar fashion. Mr. Kelly said he opposed the motion due to its narrowness. He then clarified that the previous TSMF was $4 monthly for a household. The motion failed unanimously. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a pro- posal for the implementation of a citywide Street Lighting Fee to fund the operation, main- tenance and enhancement of the City’s street lighting system along arterial, collector, and neighborhood streets. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that many constituents requested a mechanism to pay for street lights in their neighborhoods. She voiced hope that residents could be granted the opportunity; however, she said that she could not support the motion as a separate action. City Manager Taylor urged the council to consider this motion, pointing out that it has a reasonable relationship to the day-to-day issues the city needed to address to make the lights appropriate, expand as neighborhood interest warranted, and retract as deemed prudent. Additionally, he pointed out that due to the escalating costs of energy, this motion may have special value to the community. Mr. Kelly said he was under the impression there was a program to fund street lights for neighborhoods that expressed an interest. Mr. Corey replied there was a small amount of money available for spot street lighting; however, he spoke to the bigger funding issue of ongoing energy costs. Mr. Kelly pointed out that energy costs were a reality in other City operations as well and therefore he could not support the motion. Mr. Poling turned to page 23 of the council meeting packet and asked staff to provide the current annual cost of the arterial collector/neighborhood street lighting, how much of an increase would be required, and how would it be applied. Mr. Corey replied that the current annual cost was approximately $800,000, and that slightly more than half was for the arterial collector system and slightly less than half was for the neighborhood system, funded by the Road Operating Fund. He said the analysis describes different scenarios in how the moneys could be collected, one being a per utility service charge of approximately 60 cents per month for an individual service user who benefits from the Arterial Collector System; approxi- mately 50 cents per month if there was desire to have a residential neighborhood street lighting; and an estimated cost of 29 cents per month for collection. In response to a question from Mr. Pape?, Mr. Corey explained there was an “opt in” and “opt out” alternative for most of the systems that were in place. He said that if the motion moved forward, staff would MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 5 Work Session