CC Minutes - 02/27/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

similar methodology but would not support the changed methodology that was presented to the council in 2004 as it dramatically shifted the share-paid from large businesses to homeowners. Mr. Pryor said he preferred that if the TSMF was implemented, the funds be dedicated solely to that use. Additionally, that the rate structure be carefully reviewed to ensure that it was equitable. He commented there were the operational components that need to be addressed which cannot be funded in other ways and which can be tackled by the TSMF. Mr. Pryor suggested that with regard to the capital components, the City should begin a creative discussion to address those components separately. Mr. Poling reiterated that the TSMF must be uncomplicated so the community would have a clear understanding of what it would be expected to pay. He noted that he voted to repeal the TSMF when it came before the council in 2002 as he was under the impression that the County was willing to work with the City on some of these issues. Mr. Poling said he commented at the time that if such a partnership did not move forward, he would be willing to support a resurrection of the TSMF. He opined that it may be prudent to ask the public to vote on this issue. Mr. Pape? stated he voted to retain TSMF in 2000 and 2002 and he was in favor of considering it once again only if the council has the political will to follow through regardless of the pressure that would be present from other jurisdictions. City Manager Taylor remarked that discussions regarding this and other options present before the council have already begun with the Budget Committee. Mr. Corey added there was a fairly intense and well-developed public outreach process to ensure that all constituents understood the TSMF proposal in 2002, and that some form of public outreach would need to ensue for the proposals that were being considered. Mr. Pape? asked how the community could provide input to develop the TSMF. Mr. Corey explained that the previous outreach did include input for the development of the ordinance. City Manager Taylor added that should the council adopt the motion under consideration, staff could develop specific strategies and timelines for the council to consider. Mr. Pape? voiced his concurrence with the comments expressed by Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pryor around this option and further suggested a “sunset” component as a prudent step. Mr. Corey stressed that the proposals under consideration only begin to decrease the backlog and over a period of 10 years, the current $100 + million backlog would only be partially erased. However, he concurred that a sunset clause could be effective to the overall strategy with the understanding that other measures would need to be implemented at some point. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the discussion by 10 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Taylor said that when the decision was made to rescind the TSMF, it was with the hope there would be a solution provided by the County. However, he pointed out that not only was there no solution, the City was now in jeopardy of losing partnership payments. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that the issue of pavement preservation was the most frequently mentioned topic when he met with citizen groups. City Manager Taylor remarked that $11 million of pavement preservation would have been contracted out the summer the TSMF was rescinded. He concluded that there was now more support from the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce and the Eugene Water & Electric Board due to the legitimate efforts of the City to seek other solutions. Ms. Solomon offered her support for the TSMF. However, she stressed that it must be clearly identified so the councilors can defend the fee to their constituents. Ms. Solomon said she was uncomfortable that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 7 Work Session