Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/15/09 Work SessionMINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street — Eugene, Oregon July 15, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. Ms. Piercy called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:02 p.m. A. WORK SESSION – An Ordinance Concerning Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealers' Business License Tax and Repealing Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20337 Public Works Director Kurt Corey provided an overview of the proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 20337 for the benefit of the council and described the history of the local gas tax since its inception in 2003. Mr. Corey noted that the purpose of the proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 20337 was to effectively make the five -cent local gas tax rate permanent by repealing the sunset provision on the two -cent fuel tax rate increase enacted in 2005. Mr. Corey reported that the proposed amendment was in response to House Bill 2001, a state transporta- tion bill adopted in the most recent legislative session and which was due to become active in September of 2009. Mr. Corey expressed that while HB 2001 would ultimately provide approximately $3 million in state highway funds, provisions of that bill would prevent local governments such as the City of Eugene from enacting any new gas taxes before 2014 and then only with the consent of the voting public. Mr. Corey provided a brief overview of the various preservation and improvement projects that had been funded by the City's local gas tax. Mr. Corey noted that the next steps regarding the proposed ordinance would be a public hearing on Monday, July 20, followed by action on the matter on Monday, July 27, 2009. Ms. Taylor strongly supported the proposed ordinance. Mr. Poling noted that the proposed ordinance did not constitute a new tax, that the money was being spent conscientiously, and that the public was generally not opposed to the local gas tax itself. He felt that repealing the sunset provision as outlined in the ordinance would be a wise choice to help deal with the massive Public Works operations and maintenance backlog. Mr. Poling felt the precise amount of revenue to be generated by HB 2001 was relatively uncertain and noted that he was therefore in favor of the ordinance before the council. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Piercy believed there had not been any reductions in the public's desire to have the roads fixed in Eugene and that the public's desire for roadway improvements would outweigh any opposition to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Zelenka stated he had recently met with representatives from the Eugene Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber's Local Government Affairs Council (LGAC) and noted that they believed the local gas tax had been very helpful in addressing problems such as the operations and maintenance backlog. Mr. Zelenka noted that he supported not only the ordinance but also other revenue stream strategies such as the street utility fee. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Poling that the proposed ordinance revision did not constitute a new tax. Mr. Zelenka reiterated for the benefit of the council, and those listening to the meeting, that every cent of the local gas tax was required to be spent on road repairs. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, clarified Mr. Zelenka's previous statement and noted that until FY2010, the entirety of the local gas tax revenues had been spent on the capital preservation program. A portion of the gas tax proceeds are presently being used to balance the FY 2010 operations and maintenance component of the road fund budget. Mr. Clark commented that the public was not generally aware that most general fund revenues from property taxes did not go to fix local roads. Mr. Clark noted he was concerned by the council's recent decision to direct $1 million in available federal funding to bike paths rather than local road improvements. Mr. Clark stated he would be willing to move the discussion of the proposed ordinance to a public hearing. Mr. Pryor felt that the local gas taxes might ultimately represent a declining source of revenue and questioned the reliability of the gas taxes as a continuing source of sufficient revenue for the City. He further expressed that the discussions surrounding the gas tax were part of a much larger overall revenue problem and that it was important to find a combination of careful and well - planned revenue - generating strategies to deal with the current budget crisis. Ms. Ortiz supported moving the proposed ordinance to a public hearing as well as the implementation of the ordinance itself. Mr. Brown and Ms. Solomon both supported the proposed ordinance and agreed with earlier comments made in that regard. Mr. Poling, referring to previous council conversations regarding the garbage hauler surcharge, stated there was no more direct nexus than that which existed between the road repairs and the gas tax. He further hoped that the City might find more ways to utilize general fund revenues to pay for road repairs and improvements. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Piercy, referring to several questions regarding the use of local gas tax revenues, asked Mr. Corey to describe in further detail how such funds were specifically utilized. Mr. Corey noted that information describing the specific projects funded by the City's gas tax could be viewed on the Public Works portion of the City of Eugene website. Mr. Zelenka asked if there was any way for City staff to provide, perhaps in the form of a resolution, more detailed information on what projects gas tax revenues would be dedicated towards. City Attorney Glen Klein responded that the City Code already contained language describing how gas tax revenues could be used. Mr. Corey could not refer to the specific code language but added that the code generally mirrored State constitutional limitations on the use of such revenues. Mr. Zelenka requested that Mr. Klein return to the council with further information regarding the various overhead costs that might be applied in relation to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to send Option 2, "The council could approve the proposed code amendment as shown in Attachment A to repeal the sunset provision enacted in 2005 and extended in 2008, effectively leaving the fuel tax rate at five cents per gallon for an indefinite period," to a public hearing. Mr. Clark noted that as a council member he received frequent questions regarding the local gas taxes and their uses but often did not feel as if he had sufficient information with which to respond to such questions He hoped that Mr. Corey and staff would be able to provide a complete list of all projects that might be eligible for funding with local gas tax revenues. Mr. Klein, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, suggested that the council take action regarding the proposed ordinance before their next break so as to minimize any potential implementation difficulties with respect to HB 2001. Mr. Klein further noted that a referral of HB 2001 would delay the effective date of the bill until after the subsequent election regarding it. Ms. Taylor agreed with earlier comments that the proposed ordinance did not constitute a new tax on the public. Mr. Klein, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Solomon, confirmed that a successful referral of HB 2001 would not jeopardize the City's current five -cent gas tax. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Zelenka's previously stated motion. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION – Comprehensive Transportation Funding Solutions and a Street Utility Fee Mr. Corey provided a brief history and overview of the street utility fee as well as an overview of the other four comprehensive transportation funding solutions that had been reviewed by the council. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Corey noted there had been some consensus from the council regarding their desire for further information and investigation into the concept of a street utility fee. Mr. Corey directed the council members to their copies of his November 15, 2007 memorandum to them and noted that the information contained therein remained current. Mr. Corey briefly described how a street utility fee would operate whereby the City would take a transportation system and put it in the context of any other utility system such as water or electricity. He noted that a transportation utility fee would be intended to develop a model to assess user fees to transpor- tation systems based upon the level of use by various classes of users. Mr. Corey commented that recent discussions with members of the local business community such as the Northwest Grocers Association regarding the use of a street utility fee had been mildly encouraging. Mr. Corey noted that the lack of a billing system for the City to use in collection of a street utility fee represented a significant constraint. He further noted that while EWEB performed billing for the City's wastewater /stormwater services, they had been historically reluctant to extend such billing practices to collect a street utility fee on behalf of Eugene. Mr. Corey reported that it would not be cost effective for the City to implement its own billing system for a street utility fee due to the significant up -front and ongoing costs involved. Mr. Corey stated that staff was seeking clear consensus regarding the specific direction to take regarding the street utility fee. He underscored the need for policy level discussions with the EWEB board of directors as the matter moved forward. Ms. Piercy recognized that Mr. Corey viewed the street utility fee as the last viable option from among the other funding solutions that had been considered and also that a clear consensus from the council would be needed. Mr. Clark noted that he would support Option 2 as listed in the agenda item summary and felt that there could not be a worse time for the City to create a new tax. He suggested that the council should continue to hold discussions regarding the prioritization and use of the City's general fund in order to better address and reflect the community's expectations regarding road repairs and improvements. He stated that he could not support further investigations into the use of the street utility fee until such conversations had taken place. Mr. Zelenka felt that further conversations regarding the priorities assigned to the general fund might not be productive and noted that the street utility fee would be an efficient and equitable means of generating revenue to deal with the transportation funding backlog. Mr. Zelenka stated that the parking -based street utility fee would be more explainable to the public than a trip -based model. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that an average number of two parking spaces per residence were expected to be used for the parking -based street utility fee. Mr. Poling expressed he was in favor of moving the discussion regarding the street utility fee forward but not necessarily the policy itself. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Poling commented that the use of some sort of street utility fee seemed logical as everyone in the City used the roads in some capacity regardless of their preferred mode of transportation. Mr. Poling noted that it would be essential to include EWEB in any discussions of the street utility fee and the collection of those fees. Mr. Poling continued to believe that it might be best to refer the use of the street utility fee to the voters. Mr. Poling added that he also favored the parking -based model rather than the trip - generation -based street utility fee. Mr. Corey, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Taylor, believed that most residential properties would typically be considered to have two parking spaces and that any special dispensations to be given to residences with more or less than two parking spaces had yet to be determined. Ms. Taylor averred that a vehicle registration fee would be less taxing on the public than a street utility fee and that the City had not worked diligently enough to explore the use of a vehicle registration fee. She believed that effective communications with Lane County government representatives as well as representa- tives from other city leaders within the County might make passage of a local vehicle registration fee possible. Ms. Taylor believed that using EWEB's billing system to collect the street utility fee would not be effective. Mr. Pryor stated that the street utility fee represented a very important revenue - generating opportunity but believed that it would only be so if it was executed responsibly and in partnership with the rest of the community including local businesses and municipalities. Mr. Pryor believed that any discussions regarding specific rates and the number of parking spaces to be applied to the street utility fee would be premature without further consultation with various community representatives. Mr. Pryor believed that any discussions regarding prioritizations of the general fund could be conducted concurrently with the planning discussions regarding the street utility fee. Mr. Pryor suggested that a collaborative group comprised of business, government and community leaders be formed to explore the best ways in which a street utility fee might be implemented in a manner similar to what had been instituted in other Oregon cities such as Tigard. Mr. Pryor agreed that it would be very important to use EWEB as an effective collaborative partner with respect to the implementation of the street utility fee. Mr. Corey, responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Brown regarding the manner in which street utility fee revenues would be used, noted that it had not yet been determined if the street utility fees would be directed expressly toward the Public Works operations and maintenance backlog. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Brown believed that a parking -based model for the street utility fee made more sense than a trip - generation -based fee and agreed with Mr. Pryor's suggestion that a collaborative group might be formed to address the matter. Ms. Ortiz hoped that future discussions regarding the implementation of the street utility fee would be connected to other considerations such as LTD's planned EmX expansions as well as other issues that might affect how and where motor vehicles were used throughout the area. Ms. Solomon believed a parking -based model might not be the most equitable manner in which to proceed with the street utility fee and hoped that any collaborative groups formed to investigate the matter would consider instances where a residence might have more than two vehicles. Ms. Solomon expressed that a necessary first step on the street utility fee would be for the City to enlist the cooperation of EWEB for the billing /collection of the fee. Ms. Solomon hoped that a street utility fee based on a parking model would not conflict with any part of the City Code with respect to any development strategies designed to reduce the number of parking spaces in the City. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, noted that on- street parking would not be included as part of the street utility fee as such spaces were generally not the exclusive purview of the property owner. Ms. Solomon worried that increasing the number of City staff necessary to successfully implement a street utility fee would constitute an unnecessary increase in the size of the City's overall organizational structure. Ms. Piercy recognized that there was a general consensus from the council to move forward with the discussion of the street utility fee, if not the full implementation of the fee itself. Ms. Piercy agreed with comments that maintained that a collaborative approach with the City's business and community leaders would be the best way in which to proceed with discussions of the street utility fee and encouraged the council members to feel free to become more engaged in such collaborations as the matter moved forward. Ms. Piercy felt that it would be very important to include those community members who did not drive, in the various conversations surrounding the street utility fee. Mr. Zelenka noted his support of a vehicle registration fee and requested that staff gather more information on how such fees were applied in other areas of the country. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to contin- ue work on development of a street utility fee, including returning with a proposed budget for additional staffing and program needs for this effort and a plan to in- volve the public. Mr. Clark noted that while he was in favor of public involvement in the matter of the street utility fee he would be voting against the motion. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Zelenka's previously stated motion. The mo- tion passed, 6:2 (Mr. Clark and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to develop the street utility fee using parking spaces as the metric for measuring relative use of the system and allocating the costs between user categories. Mr. Poling confirmed that the stated motion was only directing the City Manager to return with further information on the manner in which a street utility fee would be implemented, rather than direction for the City Manager to implement the fee itself. Ms. Piercy agreed with Mr. Poling's statement and felt it was important that the public understood that the council discussions represented only the "beginning of a journey" with respect to the street utility fee. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on the previously stated motion. The motion passed 6:2 (Mr. Clark and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to work with EWEB leadership to coordinate a joint elected officials meeting where the topic of discussion would be the potential for use of EWEB's billing infrastructure for a City street utility fee. Ms. Piercy believed there needed to be several levels of conversation regarding the street utility fee but felt that a joint elected officials meeting would not necessarily be the best place for such conversations. Mr. Clark stated he would not support the motion but agreed that the City should work closely with EWEB regarding the street utility fee as well as other shared City priorities. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on the previously stated motion. The motion passed 6:2 (Mr. Clark and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to imple- ment the street utility fee once the economy recovers with a metric to be deter- mined. City Attorney Glenn Klein noted that the City Manager would not have the authority to actually implement the street utility fee and suggested that Mr. Zelenka revise his previously stated motion. Mr. Zelenka, with the consent of the second, amended his previously stated motion and moved to direct the City Manager to bring an ordinance regarding the street utility fee back to the City Council for final approval once the economy recovers with a metric to be determined. Mr. Zelenka, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, suggested that one possible metric to be used with respect to his motion would be "two consecutive quarters of economic growth." Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Zelenka's previously stated motion. The mo- tion passed 6:2 (Mr. Clark and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to put the street utility fee on the bal- lot before the voters in the event that the City decided to go forward with plans to implement such a fee. The motion failed, 3:5 (Mr. Pryor, Mr. Brown, Ms. Solo- mon, Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Zelenka voting in opposition). Ms. Piercy adjourned the work session meeting at 1:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 8 Work Session