HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/16/06 Public Hearing
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Public Hearing
Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall
October 16, 2006
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé,
Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the public hearing of the Eugene City Council to order.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Establishing a Real Property Value-Added Charge;
Adding Sections 2.100, 2.105, 2.110 and 2.115 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending Section
8.005 of that Code; and Adopting a Severability Clause
City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Planning and Development Director Susan Muir and City Attorney
Glenn Klein.
Mr. Klein summarized the history behind the ordinance, which was proposed by Councilor Bettman as a
way to develop funds to pay the cost of valid Ballot Measure 37 claims received by the City of Eugene.
Where the City took an action that increased the real market value of a property, the City would recover a
portion of the increased value and use that money to establish a fund to pay potential Ballot Measure 37
claims.
Mr. Klein said that two categories were included in the proposed ordinance: one category in which a
property owner or someone acting on the property owner’s behalf initiated such an action, and another
category in which the council initiated the action. In the case of a property owner initiating an action such
as a rezoning or redesignation in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), the
owner would pay 25 percent of the increase in the property’s real market value to the City. When the
council initiated such an action, affected property owners would not be responsible for payment of the
charge unless the property owner decided to take advantage of the change in zoning or the UGB. If a
property owner failed to pay the fee, he or she would be unable to apply for a building permit.
Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public hearing. She opened the public hearing.
Roxie Cuellar
, 2053 Laura Street, representing the Lane County Home Builders Association, said the
ordinance demonstrated that the council needed to start deciding what its priorities were. She suggested that
councilors’ goals for higher densities would be discouraged by such an ordinance. Under the ordinance, a
property owner who developed ten acres of land originally zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential with a
market value of $1 million would be obliged to pay the City $250,000 if the property was zoned to R-2
Medium-Density Residential with a market value of $2 million. That would deter many projects. Ms.
Cuellar pointed out the home builders association would not care if the supply of low-density land was not
rezoned to a higher density and its members could continue to build single-family detached houses. Those
who wanted to increase density should care.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 1
Public Hearing
In regard to annexation, Ms. Cuellar pointed out that some land, such as agricultural land, had a density
lower than R-1. There were many such properties outside the city limits and inside the urban growth
boundary (UGB). She said that such properties did not sell at the price of agricultural land; the market
value of such a property was the same if zoned agricultural or R-1 because sellers of such properties knew
the intended use. Using the Tax Assessor’s Market Value might not represent true market value in such
cases at all.
Ms. Cuellar asked that the record remain open for two weeks.
Ms. Cuellar suggested local adoption of such an ordinance could be an impediment to discussions statewide.
Portland was discussing a value-added tax to pay for infrastructure in areas where the boundaries were
expanded because of a lack of funding for services in those areas.
Jim Welsh
, 2139 Centennial Plaza, representing the Eugene Association of Realtors, expressed concern
about the impact of the ordinance on the costs of development and affordable housing. He believed that the
ordinance creating the fee was a new land use ordinance under the definition of land use ordinance in Ballot
Measure 37 and could create a whole new class of Ballot Measure 37 claimants. The council was
contemplating a 25 percent devaluation of private real property upon any annexation, zone change, or Metro
Plan redesignation. The regulatory reduction of value immediately occurs when owner was required to
deposit 25 percent of the value of his development before the development process could occur.
Mr. Welch said that imposing the fee would increase the cost of housing. He did not think the fee was
needed because the City had not received a large number of Ballot Measure 37 claims and there was only
three months remaining before the deadline for filing claims through the courts. Property owners will
consider the charge excessive and unfair. The market evaluation process was fraught with pitfalls because
of the ever-changing market. He asked how Ballot Measure 5 and 50 related to the tax. He asked if the
charge did not represent double-taxation. Those he spoke to believed that it was. Mr. Welch said that the
ordinance would have a further dampening effect on development in Eugene.
th
John Lauch
, 715 West 4 Avenue, representing Eugene School District 4J, said the district believed that the
proposed ordinance would result in lost revenue to the school district if adopted as drafted. The district had
been experiencing significant declining enrollment over the last nine years, resulting in the need to
consolidate and close schools. The district was disposing of such sites and he anticipated it would dispose
of more in the future. Four sites that had been sold recently were still in public ownership or were now
owned by a nonprofit agency providing quasi public uses. The district’s Santa Clara property was currently
in escrow with a private developer and the property would require a zone change for the change in
ownership to occur. The property value could be greatly enhanced by the zone change, which was reflected
in the offer made to the school district. Under school board policy, revenues generated by such sales were
first directed to the improvement of other district facilities. The ordinance would have a significant impact
on revenues to the district and would impair improvement and upgrade efforts at existing school facilities.
Mr. Lauch submitted written testimony.
th
Rob Zako
, 1280-B East 20 Avenue, representing 1000 Friends of Oregon, concurred with the request to
keep the record open. He said that according to Portland State University, one of 11 acres of farmland in
the Willamette Valley was subject to a Ballot Measure 37 claim. Mr. Zako said it was “perhaps unfortu-
nate” that subdivisions were being built next to farms, precluding those farms from operating, and rock
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 2
Public Hearing
quarries were being built next to residences whose occupants did not want to live next to a rock quarry. Mr.
Zako averred that people who voted for Ballot Measure 37 did not know what they were voting for and then
wondered why a development was happening next to them. He suggested the reason the ballot measure was
in litigation was because it was poorly written, and thought it unfortunate the measure did not provide for a
compensation fund and the legislature had been able to resolve the problems with the measure. He
acknowledged Ballot Measure 37 as the law and maintained that if Oregon residents supported Ballot
Measure 37 and the payment of compensation to property owners from a government action that reduced a
property’s value, “it was inescapable logic” that they supported paying the government for increases in their
property value from a result of government actions.
Mr. Zako asserted that the measure’s ballot title contained information stating that the measure would cost
the State billions, and people voted for it knowing that the government would have to pay those costs.
Mr. Zako believed the ordinance was a reasonable approach given the existence of Ballot Measure 37, and
1000 Friends of Oregon commended City staff for coming up with a carefully written and workable
proposal.
Lisa Warnes
, 5020 Nectar Way, said the ordinance seemed fair and reasonable to her as a solution to the
serious problem brought on the state by the passage of Ballot Measure 37. It seemed fair that property
owners who sought actions that benefited the value of their property should pay more. She agreed with the
request to keep the record open.
Zachary Vishanoff
, Patterson Street, provided the council with a packet of materials and asked the council
to consider the information. He believed that the council was enhancing the tools for zoning enforcement by
the government and he did not think that citizens had a grip on the tools the City already had at its disposal
to change their neighborhoods without their consent. He said that streamlining the City’s ability to go full
speed ahead with “smart growth” was not in the public’s interest. He thought that smart growth in Eugene
was already out-of-control. Mr. Vishanoff said that the idea that density was good for the community was a
false premise given the increase in air pollution levels that would occur. He said that density also promoted
flooding and was used as a premise for the redevelopment of riverfronts in ways communities could not
afford. Those riverfronts were often “hijacked” by the research industry for “weird” research that did not
benefit the public. Mr. Vishanoff suggested that the council supported density because it perceived the
government “pork” for such projects as a sustainable prop for the economy, which he considered a mistake.
Charles Biggs
, 540 Antelope Way, favored the ordinance because when the Planning Commission had a
member with a Ballot Measure 37 claim it was “time to level the playing field.” He asked that the ordinance
be amended to disqualify those with a value-added charge from seeking other City subsidies.
William Sellers
, 6071 Mondavi Lane, said that he was working with a group of attorneys to block any taxes
the City of Eugene attempted to put forth. He said that he was working to arrange a full, seven-year audit of
the City to identify waste and fraud. He was amazed by the City’s wasteful spending. Road taxes had
increased and it appeared the council wanted to be everything to everybody and that required more taxes.
He said that excessive taxation needed to come to an end. The council should not be working to spend
money so it could tax people the fastest way.
Majeska Seese Green
, PO Box 1214, Eugene, clarified that she was not speaking on behalf of the
Whiteaker Community Council (WCC), but favored the ordinance as an individual and hoped the council
would proceed with its adoption.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 3
Public Hearing
Ms. Seese Green said that the WCC did not oppose infill or density but wanted it done in a way that fit in
with the neighborhood. The WCC supported infill compatibility standards. She said that the WCC did not
appreciate being accused by a City staff person of having a NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) attitude as
recently occurred at a general meeting. She did not believe that the WCC had done anything to give that
indication, and she did not think it was right for a City staff person to give that impression.
Tom Slocum
, 1950 Grand Drive, was opposed to the ordinance. He said that anyone who got property
rezoned for an increase in value paid more in taxes on the property in question. They would develop the
property and the City would receive increased revenues. He said the ordinance, if passed, would slow
development to the point where the City would have further trouble paying its bills. He also anticipated that
the City would encounter problems with areas such as Santa Clara, which if annexed would increase in
value. The ordinance would preclude future annexations and residents of those areas would take advantage
of the City services they could get without paying for them. Mr. Slocum suggested that 1000 Friends of
Oregon think about the issue again as he believed the community’s failure to increase its UGB and the type
of development the City required, which was not necessarily what people wanted, was resulting in the
growth of satellite communities. Those who yelled most about sprawl were watching it happen right now.
Mr. Slocum said that Eugene was the principle architect of that sprawl. If the ordinance passed, he believed
that there would be more people wanting to move out to all the subdivisions that would be created outside
the UGB in the county.
Tom Hafferty
, 4510 Manzanita Street, thought Oregon’s land use system was a visionary one that had
avoided what he considered to be undesirable development in other places. He acknowledged the impetus
behind Ballot Measure 37 and noted other communities were merely waiving their rules instead of paying
compensation. He applauded the council’s desire to not give in to whatever changes people wanted to make
to their private property but to actually step up and pay those owners compensation. He acknowledged that
it would cost money to keep Eugene more livable but he thought the ordinance was an innovative way to do
so. Developers would pay a one-time cost and he thought that was appropriate.
There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the oral portion of the public hearing.
Councilor Papé, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to leave the record open until 5:30
p.m. on October 30. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Councilor Ortiz thanked all those who spoke. She asked what time those wishing to provide written
information to the council should do that. Mayor Piercy suggested that it be provided at the time when
people signed up to speak. Council Coordinator Lynda Rose said that she could get any materials provided
to her earlier in the day of the meeting to the City Council that same day, and information submitted at
public hearings was provided to the council in its Thursday packet. She emphasized the need for staff to
receive such materials so it could keep the public record accurately. Mr. Klein added that any testimony
related to a land use proceeding should be provided to staff for distribution to the council as part of the
official record.
Councilor Ortiz encouraged those submitting such information to submit it before the meeting.
Responding to a question from Councilor Poling, Mr. Klein clarified that property owners affected by an
action of the City Council would not be required to pay for the increase in value until he or she applied for
an “upzoning.” Councilor Poling asked if the property owner paid the value of the property at the time the
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 4
Public Hearing
upzoning occurred or when they actually took advantage of it. Mr. Klein said that he would respond in
writing before the next council work session on the subject.
Councilor Kelly said that the testimony opposed to the ordinance did not address where the City would get
money to pay Ballot Measure 37 claims. He welcomed alternate ideas. The City had between $300,000 and
$6 million in claims pending, and there was no final deadline for claims. Councilor Kelly said that creation
of a fund to pay for valid claims could help the City to preserve its regulatory authority to continue to plan
and adopt new land use laws.
Councilor Kelly asked that another work session on the topic and council action be scheduled in this
calendar year.
Councilor Kelly asked Mr. Klein to provide a response to the point raised by Ms. Cuellar about the rezoning
of agricultural land inside the UGB and a response to the claim made by Mr. Welch that the ordinance was a
land use regulation. He complimented staff on the well-drafted ordinance.
Councilor Papé asked how market value would be established. Mr. Klein said the assessor’s valuation
would be used but it could be challenged by the property owner. If the property owner got an appraisal that
differed from the assessor’s data, the City could get its own appraisal. Councilor Papé pointed out that the
assessor was behind in his property assessments and asked how the City could get real values. Mr. Klein
said he would respond in writing.
Responding to a question from Councilor Papé, Mr. Klein confirmed that there were no exceptions in the
ordinance for nonprofit agencies, and he did not think that was in opposition to State law. The charge would
not be considered a property tax under either ballot measures 5 or 47/50. Councilor Papé asked if
conditional use permits were covered by the ordinance. Mr. Klein said no. He reiterated that the charge was
only triggered by a rezoning, annexation, or a change in designation in the Metro Plan. Councilor Papé
thought that the granting of conditional use permits could increase a property’s value as well.
Councilor Papé said the ordinance appeared not to restrict the use of the funds collected as a result of its
adoption. He wanted to restrict the use of the funds so they could be used for nothing else but paying Ballot
Measure 37 claims.
Councilor Bettman thanked those who spoke and also thanked staff for its work on the ordinance. She said
the ordinance was simple and fair. She supported Councilor Kelly’s suggestion for a work session and
action by year’s end if possible.
Councilor Bettman referred to the school district property and asked if the school district could secure the
rezoning and sell the property and then the value-added would not be triggered until the purchaser applied
for a permit. Mr. Klein said no, not the way the ordinance was drafted. If the school district applied for the
zone change, it would be treated like any other private property owner. Councilor Bettman suggested that
was the cost of the measure; the fact the school district’s property was worth more if zoned differently had
everything to do with the City’s regulation of other property and the City’s provision of services.
Councilor Bettman asked how real market value was calculated as compared to how it was calculated for
Ballot Measure 37 claims. It appeared the ordinance excluded improvements from the calculation. Mr.
Klein confirmed that. She asked how Ballot Measure 37 calculated value for a claim. Mr. Klein said there
were three different ways properties were valued for Ballot Measure 37 claims. Occasionally an appraisal
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 5
Public Hearing
was submitted that included an appraisal of the land value without improvements; sometimes the appraisal
would include land improvements; and most of the time the majority of claims were filed without any
appraisal at all, and included a statement from the property owner or representative stating their opinion of
the value of the property without regulation. Councilor Bettman asked if the courts had shown consistency
in how land value was calculated. Mr. Klein said there were no cases that had addressed the issue. Ballot
Measure 37 cases were just beginning to get filed, and the issues litigated thus far were more preliminary in
nature, such as the question of who could file. Mr. Klein said most claims filed had either been denied or
waivers had been granted. He was not aware of any cases where governments had paid a claim.
Councilor Solomon said that the ordinance continued to feel like double taxation to her and she continued to
oppose it. She asked about Mr. Welch’s remarks about the deadlines for filing Ballot Measure 37 claims.
Mr. Klein said that the measure stipulated that claims must be submitted in two years or December 2 of this
year or two years from the date a government applied the regulation to a piece of property. The initial
deadline was for submitting a claim to a local government without submitting a land use application and
applied to regulations existing as of the day the measure took effect. A property owner submitting a claim
after December 2 would first have to go through a land use process and have the application denied; at that
point, the owner had two more years to pursue the claim.
Councilor Pryor asked how many current Ballot Measure 37 claims the City of Eugene faced. Ms. Muir
said three were submitted. Lane County had received somewhere between 50 and 200. Councilor Pryor
asked if Lane County had a Ballot Measure 37 fund. Mr. Klein said no. Councilor Pryor asked how Lane
County was handing such claims. Mr. Klein said that the Board of County Commissioners was granting
waivers. Councilor Pryor determined from Mr. Klein that no other Oregon city had such a fund as that
being contemplated.
Councilor Pryor said the ordinance represented uncharted waters. He said conceivably, the City could grant
waivers instead of paying compensation. He questioned whether the City needed a fund of this size as it
appeared the City could raise a great deal of money to pay claims that never occurred.
Councilor Pryor was also concerned about the notion of double-taxation and thought the concept needed
more development. He pointed out that no other city appeared to feel the need for such a fund. He
supported having an additional work session as he was not prepared to support the ordinance at this time.
Councilor Bettman said governments were waiving regulations because they lacked money to pay the claims.
She questioned whether the City would need a planning division if the council could not pass new land use
ordinances or regulations governing development because each one triggered a Ballot Measure 37 claim.
The City would simply be waiving the regulations, and then one must ask if it was worth it to pay millions
of dollars to pay for a planning division.
Councilor Bettman asked Ms. Muir how many Planning Commission work priorities had Ballot Measure 37
implications. She believed that opportunity siting and infill standards had the potential of triggering many
claims. Ms. Muir agreed, and noted that the new south hills standards could also trigger claims. She said
she would provide that information to the council.
Councilor Bettman said that Portland Metro was looking at a “windfall” tax to purchase conservation
easements tied to Ballot Measure 37 claims. She would like to explore that possibility in Eugene.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 6
Public Hearing
Councilor Papé asked if there was a way to place a lien on a property so a development could go forward
without payment of the fee. Mr. Klein said he would include a response to that in his written materials.
Councilor Kelly said that Lane County granted waivers but that presented other land use and service
challenges. Speaking to the concern that enormous amounts could be raised from the ordinance, staff’s
estimate was that it would raise about $500,000 annually. The two claims the City Council had considered
would take slightly more than half that amount. He thought that in light of the claims that had come
forward, that was not a lot of money at all.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Transportation System Maintenance Fees
and Adding Sections 7.750 through 7.790 to the Eugene Code, 1971
City Manager Taylor introduced Public Works Director Kurt Corey and City Engineer Mark Schoening.
Mr. Corey referred the council and audience to a depiction of the three-legged stool that represented the
transportation system: 1) operations and maintenance; 2) new construction; and 3) capital preservation. He
recalled the recommendation of the Budget Citizen Subcommittee to adopt a transportation system
maintenance fee as part of its recommendation for long-term street funding. The proposal before the council
would close the funding gap with a trip-based fee component based on five residential and four nonresiden-
tial categories. He reviewed the current funding sources for operations and maintenance, noting that the
service currently cost about $9 million annually and had only about $8 million in funding. He also reviewed
the current funding sources for capital preservation, noting the current revenues of about $4.5 million
annually are short of the $9 million revenue target.
Mr. Corey noted the public education and outreach process that occurred in regard to the proposal.
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing.
Larry Hale
, 2450 Laurelhurst Drive, identified himself as a typical taxpayer. He said that Eugene had
bicycle paths on nearly every street but could not afford to patch potholes. Lane Transit District (LTD)
operated buses all over the community but proposed the EmX system at a higher cost. He said that the
Eugene council gave tax breaks to nearly every big business that moved to town but could not patch the
potholes. He believed that Eugene residents wanted their money properly used. He thought the City used
“bait and switch” techniques to get people to support measures, but then the money intended for the streets
was used for other purposes. If the money was to be for repairs, that was all it should be used for.
Jim Hale
, 1715 Linnea Avenue, supported repairing the street preservation backlog. He said the City’s gas
tax should be increased for that purpose because it was already in place and an increase could be made
without any new bureaucracy. The new tax would create a need for new public employees and new
bureaucracies. Mr. Hale said that council conservatives should oppose the tax because for those reasons;
council liberals should oppose it because it disconnected the decision to make a vehicle trip from the public
costs associated with the decision. He said all councilors should oppose the tax because it was not a user
fee; instead, it was a non-user fee and internally unfair in that it taxes all households regardless of their use
of the road system and number of vehicles and businesses regardless of their profitability. In terms of
businesses, it taxes them on the irrational basis that businesses, rather than people, generated trips.
Grocery stores would be forced to pay the tax even though they could not control the shopping patterns of
their patrons.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 7
Public Hearing
Mr. Hale believed the biggest reason to oppose the fee and increase the gas tax was the loss of another
Oregonian serving in Iraq and the need to reduce the community’s reliance on and addiction to foreign oil.
Karl Sunberg
, 3318 Coraly Avenue, said there was a road maintenance problem in Eugene and suggested it
might not be due to a shortage of money but to bad decisions about which roads got resurfaced. He thought
the wrong roads got resurfaced. Now the City wanted a reward for those bad decisions to pay to resurface
the overlooked roads and more roads that do not need it. He offered to loan his car to anyone who wanted to
test the roads. Mr. Sunberg said that most west Eugene residents were used to bad roads because they
traveled them every day, and he did not think the fee would change that. He said that road assessments were
needed to improve many west Eugene roads and that would not happen because of residents’ limited income.
He pointed out that there were many poor people in the community lacking basic services and the City was
proposing to throw their needs “to the wind” to fix bumpy roads. He said “shame on us.” He said he would
support a fee to address those problems.
Mr. Sunberg said that the fee was actually a tax and the use of the word “fee” was an attempt to avoid State
law. He anticipated its rejection by the court system. He said if the City needed more money, it should call
the fee a tax. On behalf of the low-income, the disabled who would not own a car, and the elderly, he asked
the council to find a real problem and fix it.
th
John Lauch
, 715 West 4 Avenue, representing School District 4J, discussed the impact of the tax on the
school district. He said that any fee would reduce the money available for local school operations. The
district would pay approximately $107,000 annually if the ordinance passed. The district would not be
reimbursed by the State for the cost of the fee and would have to find the money from its existing budget.
He acknowledged the need to maintain the road system and noted that the district paid about $10,000
annually in City motor fuel purchases for that purpose. The ordinance would require the district to redirect
public education funds to support street maintenance.
Joel Pomeranz
, 1171 Risden Place, representing the Oregon Restaurant Association (ORA) and Oregon
Lodging Association, said the ORA supported the position of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce in
regard to the proposed fee. He thought the fee was unfair because many of the restaurants that would bear
the tax would be restaurants that were not trip generators but trip stop-offs. Restaurants operated under low
profit margins of between three and seven percent, making it more difficult for such businesses to absorb
additional fees. Eugene restaurants would be placed at a competitive disadvantage with those in neighboring
communities. He agreed that funds for street maintenance were needed and indicated supported for the
chamber’s bond proposal.
Larry Reed
, 4765 Valley Plaza Loop, representing JRH Transportation and Land Use Planning, opposed
the proposed fee. He said that the fee was the wrong solution to a real problem. He said the proposal was
not cost-effective as the cost of collecting $4 million annually would be around $700,000 and perhaps more,
or about 17-½ to 20 percent of the total collected. The fee lacked accountability because it was not
specifically dedicated to repair work between curbs and there was no guarantee it would be spent on the
backlog. The City was asking the community for more money without making street maintenance a higher
priority. He said that the streets had reached their current condition because past councils would not make
street maintenance a priority. He preferred the use of general obligation bonds to catch up with the backlog
a preferable approach. Bonding was equitable, offered certainty, demonstrated that the council was setting
priorities, and provided accountability in that money must be spent on specific projects. Mr. Reed asked the
council to explore the concept in more detail.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 8
Public Hearing
Gary Wildish
, 2424 Quince Street, supported reducing the maintenance backlog but not the backfill of
Public Works administration costs. The only administrative costs that should be paid for by the tax should
be only that directly related to street preservation projects. He encouraged the council to make maintenance
of the streets a priority. He said any money from such a fee should be dedicated to curb-to-curb repairs and
the repairs should be done by the private sector. Mr. Wildish suggested that the City dedicate the
contribution-in-lieu-of taxes (CILT) it received from the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) to the
backlog. He said that the local business community already supported the transportation system as a large
portion of LTD’s budget was provided by local business.
Terry Connelly
, 1401 Willamette Street, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, said the
chamber did not dispute the need for repairing the maintenance backlog. However, the chamber did not
think the proposed fee was the right solution. He believed the ordinance was an improvement on the
ordinance proposed previously, but the fee still lacked the conditions needed to make it work. Mr. Connelly
said the chamber was very concerned about accountability as the money was not dedicated to curb-to-curb
maintenance, which where the backlog problem existed. Future councils could chose to use the money for
other purposes in the transportation system than the backlog. Future councils could also increase the fee
without a vote or any certainty the money would go to the backlog. Mr. Connelly agreed with previous
speakers who said the fee would not be cost-effective and would be expensive to collect. He said that many
residents could not justify new fees when the council had not identified the backlog of street maintenance as
a top priority or dedicated any additional money to it. The gas tax was one incremental step in solving the
problem. Mr. Connelly said such fees had real implications for the cost of doing business, and that was hard
for the chamber to ignore.
David Hauser
, 1401 Willamette Street, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, said the
chamber continued to support the local fuel tax and would continue to lobby the Board of County
Commissioners to restore the partnership road moneys to Lane County cities. He said the chamber also
supported the use of General Fund moneys to demonstrate the issue’s priority. Mr. Hauser suggested that
the establishment of a long-term financial goal for street preservation similar to what had been done for a
new city hall complex would be appropriate.
Mr. Hauser said the chamber supported the exploration of using general obligation bonds to pay for a
portion of the backlog, noting such bonds had been used successfully in Salem, Oregon. It had the
advantage of providing greater accountability to the citizens, including a sunset that allowed evaluation of
the ordinance, allowing citizen input into the prioritization of the backlog, and requiring the City to continue
to make a case for funding. He said that if a well thought-out bond dedicated to curb-to-curb backlog was
proposed, the chamber would work with the City for its passage.
Lisa Warnes
, 5020 Nectar Way, did not support charging a $5 fee to all residents, particularly low-income
residents, suggesting that people might be forced to decide between heating their house and paying the fee.
She said in light of the lack of a guarantee of how the money would be used, she did not support the
ordinance. She said that the council should follow up on some of the suggestions made in testimony, and
asked if a vehicle registration fee had been considered.
Dave Perez
, 2055 Patterson Street, Director of the YMCA and representative of United Way Executives,
thanked Mr. Corey and his staff for their accessibility. He commended the chamber for preparing an
alternative proposal. He asked the council to consider a waiver for nonprofit agencies and 501(c)(3)
organizations given the significant and negative impact such a fee would have on those agencies’ abilities to
provide services.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 9
Public Hearing
Zachary Vishanoff
, Patterson Street, asked the council to preserve his “right” to provide the council with
materials directly prior to meetings. Speaking to the fee, he suggested a license plate that had a pothole be
established to support road maintenance. Mr. Vishanoff objected to the money set aside for City Hall. He
said that it seemed visionary and “feels smart” but he believed it undermined the public’s trust in govern-
ment. He thought if the City spent the $25 million it was holding for a new city hall on street repairs now it
would save money in the future. He said that the City had also paid money for repairs that benefited the
federal courthouse without compensation from the federal government, and he questioned whether the roads
would be used. Mr. Vishanoff called for the reconsideration of what he termed “expensive new two-way
streets” and called for a public hearing whenever a street was converted from one-way to two-way. He also
opposed the sale of neighborhood parks.
Cheryl O’Neill
, 24307 High Pass Road, Junction City, Executive Director of Womanspace, said she
represented the Human Services Providers Network, which was concerned about the impact of such fees on
nonprofit and 501(c)(3) organizations as they were not being exempted in the ordinance. She feared the
community was moving away from support for its safety net. Ms. O’Neill said the lowest income people in
the community would be affected by a loss of services. She suggested there were precedents for waiving
such fees for nonprofit organizations and asked the council to examine that possibility in more detail to
mitigate the impact of the fee on those organizations and recognize the social value they were providing.
Charles Biggs
, 540 Antelope Way, concurred with the remarks of the first three speakers. He said the
proposed fee did not seem to be sustainable, would not actively discourage the use of roads, and would
probably encourage the use of the roads “by the wrong types of peoples.” He suggested that the City should
use the revenues from the telecommunications tax in the road right-of-way.
Tom Slocum
, 1950 Graham Drive, advised the council to listen closely to the chamber’s proposal and
discard the fee proposal. He liked the proposal because he would get to vote for it, and he said he would.
He thought the best thing about a general obligation bond was that “everybody was in on it.” He said that
everyone used the streets and all should pay their share. Mr. Slocum agreed that EWEB’s CILT payment to
the City should be considered for use in the right-of-way given what he considered the logical nexus created
by EWEB’s use of the streets.
Misha Seymour
, 1313 Lincoln Street, #307, did not support the proposed fee. He used a puppet represent-
ing a property owner to carry on a conversation with himself about his opposition to the fee. He asked what
kind of tax was next. Mr. Seymour did not support City tax breaks for business and multi-family residential
developments, questioning where the money came from. He questioned how there could be no money for
roads.
Ann Tattersall
, 1385 Bailey Avenue, was opposed to the proposed fee, particularly the residential
component. She termed the fee regressive and inequitable and suggested a chewing gum tax would make as
much sense. The fee taxed those who made little or no use of the roads. She personally drove little and used
a light weight car that did not tear up the streets. She indicated she could support an increase in the gas tax,
which she considered more equitable as it would apply to those who actually used the streets. A tax for
living in a house in Eugene had nothing to do with a resident’s use of the roads.
th
Howie Bonnett
, 1835 East 28 Avenue, referred to his written testimony, provided to the council earlier.
He objected to the proposed tax because it resulted in tax shifting such as that pointed out earlier by the
representative of School District 4J. He said that the tax needed to be a tax on use, not on property. He
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 10
Public Hearing
thought the proposal inconsistent with the council’s goal related to financial resources, which called for fair
and equitable system revenues, and inconsistent with the goal related to sustainable development as it did not
meet environment needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Mr.
Bonnett said that when someone wanted to use the transportation system, they should pay a fee. He said
that his written testimony included some suggestions for proceeding, and he encouraged the council to form
an advisory body to discuss the issue.
There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing.
Councilor Ortiz thanked those who attended the hearing and spoke. She asked if the manager could provide
the council with information on how much the gas tax would need to be increased to meet the needs
identified by staff. Mr. Corey indicated that it would require about fourteen to fifteen cents per gallon to
meet the need and generate $9 million annually.
Councilor Poling said all who spoke agreed the streets needed to be maintained. He recalled that he had
voted to rescind the fee previously on the basis that Lane County would assist in the road funding solution;
that had not occurred, and Lane County was now contemplating ending its contribution to the City’s Road
Fund.
Councilor Poling wanted a fee that addressed maintenance needs on a curb-to-curb basis and said Section
7.750(2)(a) must be removed if he was to support the ordinance. He did not support paying for off-street
maintenance with the fee.
Councilor Poling said that increasing the local gas tax would be unfair to local gas station owners because it
would be easy for motorists to drive to Springfield or other areas of the county and pay less.
Councilor Poling indicated he would not support an ordinance unless the public voted to support it.
Councilor Poling said that he had repeatedly tried without success to make street maintenance a council
priority and he would raise the issue again.
Regarding the suggestion for a local vehicle registration fees, Councilor Poling said that only the County or
State could establish such a fee.
Councilor Papé believed that progress had been made in that all now seemed to be aware of the street
preservation problem. The issue now was how to fix the problem. The gas tax solved part of the problem
but the City was still behind in its preservation backlog. He had not favored rescinding the fee and said that
if that had not occurred, the City would not be in the situation it was facing today.
Councilor Papé noted that Salem had bonded for road improvements for years and asked where the chamber
had been three or four years ago when the City faced down the County without success.
Councilor Papé agreed with Councilor Poling that the fee should be dedicated to curb-to-curb maintenance.
Councilor Papé said that the City needed a reliable transportation system for emergency vehicles. He
pointed out that streets were needed by all, even those without a vehicle.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 11
Public Hearing
Councilor Pryor thought progress was made by the mutual recognition of the problem that existed. He
suggested that the solution might involve a partnership approach. He thought that operations and mainte-
nance projects should be paid for by ongoing money, so he would not be willing to drop a scaled-down fee
altogether. He thought that preservation could appropriately be paid for by one-time money. The concept of
bonding to pay for the City’s backlog of capital preservation needs made sense to him.
Councilor Pryor said Eugene residents were willing to give money to governments they trust and believe will
spend it appropriately. He said the council was obligated to demonstrate it could be trusted to spend the
public’s money, and not to be talking about other solutions did not engender that trust. He wanted to
generate trust with the public and proposed the council look at additional ongoing, stable money to pay for
operations and maintenance and work with the public to solve the capital preservation problem.
Councilor Kelly was “somewhat amused” by the discussion as it was clear to him there was no political will
in the community to do anything about the problem. The council was now having the same discussion it had
when the citizen members of the Budget Committee initially forwarded their recommendation six years ago.
He said the council was “going around in circles” and he was convinced it would be doing the same ten
years from now, and the roads would continue to decay.
Councilor Kelly asked staff to prepare text for a motion raising the local gas tax by ten cents per gallon
when the council took action on the ordinance.
Councilor Kelly said he did not know what people meant when they discussed “curb-to-curb” maintenance.
He asked if a bond measure could pay for operation and maintenance. Mr. Corey said it depended on the
bond measure. The focus of testimony was on capital preservation. Mr. Corey said more research would be
required as to what was eligible for bonding. Councilor Kelly said that bonding for capital preservation was
no solution for the operations and maintenance shortfall, and invited a chamber proposal for that.
Councilor Kelly said there was no dedicated source of funding for the maintenance and preservation of the
off-street bicycle path. Mr. Corey agreed. Councilor Kelly recalled that five percent of the proposed fee
was to be dedicated to bicycle paths, and said he would not support an ordinance that did not provide five
percent of revenues to maintain the City’s off-street bicycle paths.
Councilor Bettman asked if the fee could be referred by citizens to the ballot if adopted by the council. Mr.
Klein said that residents would have 30 days from the time of the ordinance’s passage to collect the
necessary signatures and turn them in to the City Recorder.
Councilor Bettman referred to the ordinance and asked if the phrase “improve elements of the City’s
transportation system” could be interpreted as providing for additional capacity. Mr. Corey said that the
ordinance mirrored text from the old ordinance that prohibited new capital construction. Councilor Bettman
interpreted Section 7.755(a) of the proposed ordinance as being general enough to allow the fee to pay for
new lanes of increased capacity. Mr. Corey said that if the council desired the ordinance to be iron-clad in
that regard, he would recommend the addition of text that clarified that intent.
Councilor Bettman thought the City had extreme latitude in discounting, modifying, or waiving fees and she
believed that led to increased fees for other users. Those residents with fewer resources were much less
likely to be challenging and appealing fees and would be inequitably burdened by the fee.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 12
Public Hearing
Councilor Bettman agreed there was a problem and suggested that the problem was exacerbated by the lack
of action on the part of the State as well.
Councilor Poling recalled that the issue of general obligation bonds had been discussed by the council in the
past and he thought more consideration of that concept was needed.
Councilor Poling said he understood the telecommunications revenues could not be used for street repairs.
Councilor Poling believed that the revenues from the current gas tax were being put to good use. He noted
the roads in his ward that had received a preservation overlay. He asked how much five percent of the fee
would realize. Mr. Corey anticipated it would realize about $300,000. Councilor Poling asked if the City
had that much work to do on the bicycle path that totaled that amount. Mr. Corey did not know, and said
that the City was approaching the maintenance level of the road system on its off-street paths.
Councilor Poling said when he talked about “curb-to-curb,” he was talking about the part of the road that
cars traveled on. However, he would not object to earmarking a specific amount to off-street bicycle paths
in the ordinance. He said the ordinance was vague on that point and it appeared the money could be spent
anywhere.
Councilor Kelly referred to the rate making standards on page 2 of the ordinance and the reference that the
fee “may be based” on those identified components. He suggested that the word “may” be changed to
“shall.”
In regard to the equitability of the fee, Councilor Kelly believed that the fee would be more equitable if the
base and administration elements were related to trip generation rates.
Councilor Kelly said the gas tax moneys had been spent exclusively on road repair. He said that roads that
might not appear to need preservation overlay received one to extend their life cycle and avoid the need to
reconstruct the road.
Councilor Taylor indicated support for spending money on bicycle paths but said she did not support the fee
because it was not equitable. Those with a small house, no car, and little income would pay the same as a
wealthy resident with many cars living in a big house. Councilor Taylor liked the concept of funding roads
through the General Fund as a basic service. She called for a general discussion of the taxation system.
Councilor Taylor did not support an increase in the local gas tax because people would drive to other
communities to buy gas.
Councilor Taylor also liked the idea of bonding to address part of the backlog. She said that the cost of
roads that needed to be rebuilt, such as Crest Drive, would still be assessed to residents under the current
proposal, and they would need to pay $5 monthly for the fee as well. She suggested that the City could
include those roads in the projects to be funded through a bond.
Councilor Bettman did not support a shift of General Fund revenues to pay for streets given that such funds
were needed for other purposes. People who paid the gas tax expected the government would use the
revenue to fix potholes. She maintained that would be the “quintessential double-dipping.” She suggested
that those who argued for a general obligation bond for street preservation and the use of General Fund
revenues for that purpose had also supported Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) I, II, and III
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 13
Public Hearing
projects, which were predicated on bonding against future increases in the registration fee, and Connect
Oregon projects, which were predicated on bonding against lottery revenues. She maintained that systems
development charge revenues were artificially low and the City did not have sufficient funding to pay for the
new capacity it was building, so the City was shifting funding in order to pay for new capacity.
Councilor Papé shared Councilor Kelly’s frustration at the council’s inability to find a solution to the street
funding problem and said he did not want to pass the problem on to his children and grandchildren. He
hoped the council could find a solution and was glad that all those who offered testimony recognized that
there was a problem.
Councilor Papé said he used the bicycle paths frequently and had yet to see a pothole. He asked about the
cost of a lane mile of bicycle path opposed to roadways. Mr. Corey said the costs were not so far apart on a
unit cost basis. Councilor Papé thought the City could find the money it needed in the General Fund budget
to preserve and maintain the bicycle paths.
Responding to a question from Councilor Papé, City Manager Taylor distinguished between Qwest revenues
and the EWEB CILT and suggested that staff provide the council with a memorandum regarding the reasons
for directing the revenues to the Facilities Reserve Fund, and any limitations on those funds.
Mayor Piercy believed the council had an opportunity to craft something everyone could live with. She
asked if the City could mitigate the impact of the fee on low-income residents.
Mayor Piercy said that the City Council was talking about being more supportive of the community’s
schools and human service providers while discussing a fee that directly affected them. She asked the
council to consider that issue.
City Manager Taylor indicated that staff would return to the council with different scenarios showing the
impact of a bond measure on transportation funding in relation to other funding sources. He said staff
would also provide text restricting the use of the revenues.
Councilor Bettman said there were billions spent in the state on the transportation system from a variety of
sources. She thought it a failure on the part of elected officials that an adequate portion of that money was
not set aside to preserve and maintain the existing system. The council was now asking the taxpayers to
produce more money on top of that money. She opposed spending General Fund money on transportation
when such a significant amount was being spent statewide.
Regarding the money being set aside to replace City Hall, which she thought a responsible approach,
Councilor Bettman said that money was transferred from services from each department to contribute to the
cost of replacing City offices to continue to provide those services. She thought that to use that money to fill
potholes would be unforgivable.
The meeting adjourned at 10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 14
Public Hearing
City Manager
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 15
Public Hearing