CC Minutes - 02/27/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

develop operating policies and procedures to address preferences on a “several-block” basis. Assistant City Manager Carlson added that the City received a six percent contribution in lieu of tax on gross revenues to the utilities. He explained that the moneys paid for utilities would be subject to the six-percent contribution as well and the revenues were deposited into the General Fund. Mr. Pape? stated he supports the motion at its face value but may offer objections when the proposal was put before the council. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the community paid property taxes for City services and said she did not approve of a plan whereby a constituent paid for every service he or she used. Mr. Kelly stated he could not support the motion due to the narrowness of it. He said that he understood the challenge; however, as the property tax cannot be utilized as in the past and if the Road Fund must be relieved of the funding of street lights, the funding should be part of the TSMF. Mr. Pape? asked if street lights were provided in all areas of Eugene. Mr. Corey said some neighborhoods have them and some do not, and explained that the installation of lighting was a condition of new develop- ment. He said that the spot-type method and a local improvement district could be options to install street lighting in neighborhoods. Mr. Corey believed one of the advantages of the motion would be a more fair and equitable lighting service for the community. City Attorney Jerry Lidz pointed out that the difference between a local improvement district approach and the street lighting fee was the district approach would include only the installation and the City would be responsible for the operating and maintenance costs. The motion failed 6:1, with Mr. Pape? voting in support. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a pro- posal for reestablishing the previously repealed Transportation System Maintenance Fee (TSMF) to address not only the projected ongoing operating deficit in Road Fund street op- erations and maintenance, but also to generate additional revenue to address the remaining annual funding gaps in the pavement and off-street bike path preservation programs. Ms. Taylor opined that $5 per month was a lot of money to some people. She suggested that the council review some of the options rejected by the previous Budget Subcommittee. Ms. Taylor noted for example the excise tax that the subcommittee rejected. Senior Management Analyst Larry Hill remarked that an excise tax was a tax on a sale or a specific sales tax on a variety of things. He stressed that such a tax would not be based on property value but on a sale or transaction other than property. Ms. Taylor opined that the council should review the Parking Lot Tax and the Fuel Distribution Tax rejected by the subcom- mittee. She stressed there were other sources of revenue that need to be considered. Mr. Kelly concurred that a general tax restructuring would be a prudent step for the council. However, he said that if such a process was not to occur, the TSMF was the least negative option. Mr. Kelly pointed out that TSMF was tied to the impact on transportation and therefore businesses would pay more than residents. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, City Manager Taylor replied that staff can present options to the council of varying levels of a TSMF which would then be adopted by ordinance. Mr. Kelly commented that he supported the original TSMF, as it provided a clear scientific methodology in how the rates were calculated. He pointed out that although the fee was focused on the curb-to-curb component, it also included a five-percent portion for off-street bike path preservation. Mr. Kelly said he could support a MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 6 Work Session