Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/11/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall July 11, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Rayor. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: Interim Report on Transportation System Funding Project Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson reminded the council that it directed the Budget Citizen Subcommittee to develop recommendations related to road funding. Subcommittee Chair Eleanor Mulder was in attendance to present the subcommittee's interim report and recommendations. Mr. Carlson noted that Public Works Director Kurt Corey was also present to describe some external consultant studies that were currently underway, and Dan Brown and Len Goodwin of the Springfield Public Works Department were available to discuss what Springfield was contemplating in terms of road funding. Budget Citizen Subcommittee members Jennifer Solomon, Paul Holbo, Bruce Mulligan, Jack Lucier, and Eric Forrest were also present. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Ms. Mulder anticipated final subcommittee recommendations following the completion of an independent report on the City's pavement preservation needs and an independent review of the City's transportation system operation and maintenance services. Neither study, she clarified, would affect the fact that the City had not kept up with its road maintenance and reconstruction needs, but they could affect the subcommittee recommendation for specific funding levels. Ms. Mulder emphasized the deteriorating condition of the road system. She briefly overviewed the recommendations of the subcommittee, which included the implementation of both a Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) and a small local motor vehicle fuel (gas) tax. She emphasized the dependence of the community on good roads, and said that all households were served and reached by roads, making the TUFa fair approach. Ms. Mulder spoke of the subcommittee's effort to maintain and increase the amount of Lane County Road Fund contributions to the City of Eugene, noting that at this point funding was only guaranteed through the current fiscal year, and the Board of County Commissioners was reluctant to increase Road Fund transfers for maintenance of City streets. MINUTE--Eugene City Council July 11, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Mulder expressed appreciation that representatives of Springfield were present for the discussion given people's hesitance to support a gasoline tax that was not levied in both communities. She pointed out, however, that the differential in gasoline prices in the community was greater than the two cents per gallon tax recommended by the subcommittee, lessening the risk of market flight. Ms. Mulder invited remarks from other subcommittee members. Mr. Holbo thanked staff for its work and especially for the work done by City Engineer Les Lyle. He noted the long-time duration of the road funding issue. Mr. Holbo spoke to the fact that there was considerable misunderstanding on the part of the general public about the way street construction and maintenance were funded in Eugene. He suggested that a considerable educational effort lay ahead. He further noted his belief that successful passage of a gasoline tax required the support and participation of Springfield. Mr. Mulligan spoke of the education about street conditions the subcommittee had received and of the deteriorating status of Eugene streets. He said that in many cases, the only option remaining was reconstruction. Mr. Mulligan said the subcommittee's recommendation was modeled in part on how the infrastructure underlying the streets was paid for. He emphasized the thoughtful and thorough character of the subcommittee's discussions. Mr. Corey provided background on the two independent studies requested by the subcommittee, noting that the first analysis mentioned by Ms. Mulder was expected in July, and the second analysis was expected in September. Springfield Public Works Technical Services Manager Len Goodwin said that Springfield staff planned to go to its City Council in September with a process similar to that Eugene was going through. He expected the Springfield staff recommendations to be very similar to those of the Budget Citizen Subcommittee. He said that the Springfield council had expressed strong interest in collaboration with the Eugene council because of concern it would be imprudent for either city to embark on a course of action inconsistent with the actions of the other. Mr. Carlson said the issue of transportation funding was a long-time issue for the community and it was essential that the community obtain a locally controlled source of funding to address its needs. He noted the recent adoption of a transportation utility fee by the City of Portland that took effect on July 5. He noted the legislature's debate on a bill precluding the local imposition of such fees. While that bill did not make it out of legislative committee, he anticipated similar efforts in the future at the legislature or through the initiative process. Ms. Nathanson requested more information about the State legislature's thinking, particularly since it was not willing to increase transportation funding. Had the State determined the road system was in good condition and did not need to be improved? Mr. Carlson suggested that the legislature's discussion was not actually focused on the condition of the road system. Mayor Torrey said that the transportation fee imposed in Portland was not liked by some in the legislature. He said that those opposing additional fees had called for a ten-year study of transportation issues across the state, which would further delay a resolution. He suggested the council needed to communicate with the public clearly about the condition of the road system to provide the education mentioned by Mr. Holbo. MINUTE--Eugene City Council July 11, 2001 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Nathanson observed that again, a situation in Portland had dominated the outcome of a statewide issue. She said by the time a 10-year study was complete, it would cost 20 to 50 times as much to fix the streets as it would had they been fixed earlier. Mayor Torrey reminded the council that Oregon voters rejected a gasoline tax increase, providing political cover for those legislators opposed to any fee increases. However, the legislature did pass a $400 million package for transportation funding across the state, which many pointed to as a major accomplishment given that nothing had been done by the past four legislatures. Ms. Nathanson thought it regrettable that the legislative analysis did not recognize that, while there might be some degree of revenue sharing, different cities were in different situations with regard to transportation financing because, for example, a city that was a county seat had different transportation needs due to its greater regional significance. The analysis also did not take into account the age or condition of the streets. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's remarks, Mr. Meisner did not think the legislature had done any actual analysis. He concurred as to the need to act jointly with Springfield, but wanted also to look at metropolitan-wide options that included areas outside the city limits that would require the concurrence of Lane County. He asked if the Board of County Commissioners had been approached as to its interest. Mr. Carlson said that the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) had discussed the issue in the past, and the County representatives had always been adamantly opposed to a local gasoline tax. Mr. Meisner suggested that a Eugene-Springfield gasoline tax could be enacted by those cities, but a metropolitan wide gasoline tax would require concurrence by the Board of County Commissioners and the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. Mr. Johnson said that might be one approach. Mr. Meisner emphasized his interest in creating a district that its partners controlled, not the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Johnson said that the board could impose the same tax as that imposed by Eugene and Springfield on the areas outside the city limits and inside the urban growth boundary. Mr. Meisner was not averse to a carefully crafted TUF that was equitable and tied to use. He said that what the subcommittee recommended was tied to the household rather than the number of people or cars in the household. He suggested that the fee could have a base charge as well as a charge based on use or vehicles registered at the household address. If the charge was flat for any household regardless of use, he would oppose it. Ms. Bettman asked for a breakdown of reconstruction/rehabilitation costs in the $5.3 million needed annually. Mr. Corey said he would research the answer to that question. Ms. Bettman concurred with the subcommittee's conclusions about the top funding priorities. She had wanted the subcommittee to also consider how to redirect money from new road construction projects to operations, maintenance, and preservation (OM&P) and wanted to see that analysis before she supported a TUF or gasoline tax. She also wanted to ensure that any funding mechanism be strictly tied to OM&P, with a strict prohibition against funding capacity enhancements. She said reconstruction was frequently used as an opportunity to enhance capacity and she wanted to ensure that the funding was not used for that purpose. MINUTE--Eugene City Council July 11, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Pap8 asked how much the City anticipated in road funds from Lane County. Mr. Carlson said that the City anticipated approximately $1.235 million through the current year only. The new Federal legislation provided the County funding for a period of six years. Mr. Pap8 asked Ms. Mulder to discuss market flight if a gasoline tax was imposed. Ms. Mulder said that the subcommittee felt that two cents was within the current pricing variations that existed locally, and the subcommittee did not think the tax would have a significant market flight effect. Mr. Pap8 endorsed Mr. Holbo's remarks about the need for an education program and asked for some further staff work on that issue. He asked if any polling on the subject had been done. Mr. Carlson said not recently. Mr. Pap8 thought, given that a gasoline tax was likely to be referred, public education would be very important. Mr. Kelly thanked the subcommittee members for their work and to staff for its support. He thought the anticipated external studies were key to the issue of needed public education. He was glad Springfield was represented at the meeting and said that the two communities shared a system with the same factors affecting it. He thought that there was opportunity for cooperation from several standpoints. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman about the subcommittee priorities. He noted that Appendix B in the meeting packet included some other options, and he wanted the council to have a clear discussion about the priorities before it determined an amount for funding the OM&P backlog. He agreed with a statement made earlier by Ms. Mulder that the road system benefitted all citizens, not just those with cars. Mr. Kelly thought it important to have both a TUF and a gasoline tax as he thought the two approaches complemented each other. With regard to the TUF, Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Meisner, saying he needed to see some variation in the approach taken to households, particularly single-family and multi-family dwellings, not a "one size fits all" approach. He noted that some cities use household square footage as a rough correlation to use, and multi-unit developments were assessed differently. He requested some different methodology ideas and data from staff. Mr. Farr thanked the subcommittee for its work. He said that he was a long way away from voting to support a tax or TUF, although he recognized the need. He suggested that the City look at the equity of both recommendations and factor in where the street degradation actually occurred. Mr. Farr asked how the City may be able to charge for degradation to the road way created by such vehicles as Lane Transit District (LTD) buses and heavy trucks. He said the TUF was another tax on families, who were already overtaxed. Regarding Councilor Bettman's concern about the dedication of money to OM&P, he wanted the council to recognize that extra capacity may be needed to reduce further degradation of the system. Ms. Taylor asked how much the community would receive from the State because of the passage of the $400 million package. Mr. Carlson said that the Oregon Transportation Commission would make that determination. Mr. Johnson added there was no formula basis attached to the legislation; it included an application process. Mr. Carlson said that the legislature's intent was to fund capacity-increasing projects. Mayor Torrey clarified that about 50 percent of the funds would be directed to bridge repairs, and he thought it most likely smaller cities would receive the largest share of the money available. Ms. Taylor was opposed to a TUF, saying it would be a difficult fee for many poor families to pay. She said that while the roads served all citizens, some contributed to road deterioration more than others and she wanted to capture those costs. She thought that a TUF would be referred and that MINUTE--Eugene City Council July 11, 2001 Page 4 Work Session it would be rejected by the citizens. She supported a local gasoline tax, particularly if Springfield was involved. She did not perceive the County as being totally opposed to a countywide gasoline tax, which she thought would be the ideal solution. She asked if a vehicle registration fee could be imposed by the City. Mr. Carlson said that it could be imposed only by the County. Ms. Taylor thought a vehicle registration fee a more appropriate approach to the funding issue than the household approach. Mayor Torrey wanted the Budget Committee to consider the issues involved. He said that if the two cities attempted to pass a gasoline tax at the same time, what happened if one failed and the other passed? He acknowledged that he was not ready at this point to support either a TUF or a local gasoline tax. His primary concern was the fact that County residents put a substantial amount of traffic on Eugene streets but the City does not get much from the County in road funds. He thought it necessary for the local jurisdictions to recognize "we're all in this together." Mayor Torrey said he would endorse an approach that allowed the voters to vote on the issue rather than have it referred by initiative. He wanted to know at some point which top five projects the City would fund if the money was available. He requested a report on the process the City of Portland went through in establishing its TUF. Ms. Mulder said the subcommittee considered the TUF to have an advantage over property taxes in that it got at the use of roads by nonprofit and government agencies that were exempt from paying property taxes. She noted that no other city in Oregon with a TUF went to the citizens before instituting the TUF. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to prepare information regarding whether the gasoline tax was progressive with regard to the use of the roads. For example, do heavy trucks pay relatively more in taxes than fuel-efficient automobiles? She requested information with regard to a gas tax about the correlation between use of the roads, ability to pay, and impact on the roads. Ms. Nathanson thought the independent analysis requested by the subcommittee was not only essential for public education but essential for public acceptance of any TUF or gasoline tax proposal. She thought the failure of past tax measures could be attributed to a lack of trust that all that could have been done was done to address the situation at hand. Regarding the possibility of precluding funding for future capacity enhancements, she wanted to know if funding for essential projects, such as those on Elmira Road and Warren Street, would be affected by such an approach. Ms. Nathanson asked about the potential of a joint meeting with the Springfield City Council. Ms. Bettman said that the subcommittee's report did not address OM&P for a future system, only the current system, and she wanted to see a projection of those costs using existing data over a certain period of time or the life of a project. She wanted to see what the City was committing to in terms of future OM&P needs when a new road is built. Ms. Bettman requested an analysis of the revenues that would be realized by a TUF on businesses similar to the one prepared for residences. She suggested staff split the analysis between businesses with 50 employees or less and businesses with more than 50 employees. MINUTE--Eugene City Council July 11, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked why, when projects were described and the needs identified, there were no local street projects included. Mr. Corey said that local streets were not part of a capital program at this point. Maintenance activities such as chip sealing and slurry sealing did not fit the definition of "capital." Over time, he anticipated that having a pavement management system in place would help to provide an ongoing regular maintenance of the local street system as well. Ms. Bettman said she was disappointed to hear that, because she thought once a local street was upgraded to City standards or was constructed to City standards, it became part of the City system, and most local streets were being used in ways that absorbed a lot of capacity. She thought they should be included. Mr. Kelly said he did not disagree that there was a need for capacity enhancements. He did not think Ms. Bettman was suggesting that no capacity enhancements would be made, but that capacity enhancements should not be paid for with sources other than the systems development charge. Ms. Bettman concurred. Mr. Kelly shared Mr. Fart's concern about the burden of the TUF on families. He thought it would also put a burden on businesses, and said that it would be useful to have information on the revenue to be realized by a TUF on businesses. Mr. Carlson said that the methodology had not yet been designed. The work session was intended to focus on funding mechanisms, with more details on methodology to come later. Mr. Kelly suggested staff provide the council with illustrative examples showing real numbers from other communities. He thought it would be interesting to know the percentage of revenues paid by households as opposed to the percentage paid by businesses, acknowledging the percentage paid by businesses would ultimately be paid by the consumer. Mr. Carlson said staff had some rough estimates. He said the estimate of the household number was taken from the Lane Council of Governments model on trip generation for Eugene. The model indicated one-third of the trip generation was from residential uses and two- thirds was from nonresidential uses. He said the TUF was a way of collecting revenue for trips generated by people living outside the city who either work or shop in the Eugene. The breakdown in anticipated revenues from residences and businesses reflected the trip generation split. Mr. Kelly asked if LTD would be subject to a TUF. Mr. Carlson pointed out that LTD was physically located in Springfield, although it had a station in downtown Eugene. Responding to Ms. Bettman's question about local streets, Mr. Carlson clarified that the anticipated shortfall in preservation did include local streets. They were just not listed on the map of projects. Mr. Meisner agreed with the need for voter education, believing people would resist another tax without that education. As part of that effort, he wanted to provide education about the various sources of funds and what they were allowed to be used for. Regarding the causes of road degradation, he reminded Mr. Fart that he referred to the road degradation caused by garage haulers as "insignificant"; Mr. Meisner said it was actually cumulative over time, noting there were four haulers serving his shod street and no other through traffic. There was more degradation from garbage haulers than from any other source in that situation. He preferred a mileage-based TUF. Mr. Meisner expressed surprise at the opposition to a TUF voiced by "progressives" such as Ms. Taylor, who frequently called for ending the subsidization of the private automobile. He said the TUF was a way to get users to help contribute a fair share toward the maintenance and preservation of the streets. MINUTE--Eugene City Council July 11, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pap8 indicated he could not support a gasoline tax without the cooperation of Springfield. He also agreed with Mr. Meisner that it was important to include the unincorporated areas inside the urbanizable area as well. Mr. Pap8 asked if the State was responsible for maintaining State highways that ran through the community. Mr. Johnson said yes. Mr. Carlson noted the many State projects both recent and ongoing. Those roads were not included in the City's maintenance backlog. Mr. Pap8 asked Mr. Corey how his former employer, Billings, Montana, handled its maintenance backlog. Mr. Corey responded that Billings used a street overlay district funded by a square footage assessment that was levied citywide without regard to zoning or the number of vehicles. He said this methodology recognized that the transportation system benefitted the community as a whole regardless of the number of vehicles or drivers. There was a second street overlay district focused on the central business district that provided a higher level of maintenance. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Corey said that the businesses owners requested the higher level of service, which included daily street sweeping, snow plowing and removal, and regular sanitation services that could not be provided for under the rates assessed to the rest of the community. Mr. Pap8 considered road maintenance and preservation a central City function that should be funded from the existing budget if new revenues were not supported by the voters. Ms. Taylor concurred. In response to the comments of Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor did not recall ever having said that the City should end the subsidy of the private automobile. She had, however, frequently said that rail should also be subsidized. Mayor Torrey suggested that placing a measure establishing a TUF on the ballot would force the educational process. He said that an obstacle facing the council was the fact residents just do not see the urgency of the problem. Mayor Torrey anticipated that Highway 99 between Junction City and Eugene would quickly become a future commercial industrial center for development following the completion of the prison, and Eugene should be careful what it did in terms of assessing new taxes to ensure it did not force businesses to relocate. He said that the Portland transportation utility fee had been a concern to the State legislature because of its impact on businesses, particularly small ones. Ms. Bettman said that the council must take care that it crafts a measure that can not be expanded at a later date to pay for new road projects or for the types of projects already paid for by other funding sources. She thought that would make it more palatable to the voters. Ms. Taylor thought there should be an end date or a sunset on any TUF adopted by the council. She said that this date should be tied to the "catching up" of the road system preservation work backlog. Mr. Carlson said that was also a concern of the subcommittee. He said that it was the council's responsibility, through the annual budget process, to make those decisions. B. Action: Appointment of Broadway Reopening Proponent Committee for the Voter's Pamphlet for the September 18, 2001, Special Election MINUTE--Eugene City Council July 11, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Denny Braud of Planning and Development Department asked the council to appoint a Proponent Committee for the Broadway Reopening ballot measure. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to appoint Mr. Meisner, Jenny Ulum, and Russ Brink (provided he is willing) to the Proponent Committee for the Broadway reopening measure Voter's Pamphlet for the September 18, 2001, Special Election. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTE--Eugene City Council July 11, 2001 Page 8 Work Session