Jan 2008 Results Summary - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

order to allow sufficient time for state legislative efforts to bear f7uit and for development and implementation of other elements of the council package funding strategy. On February 27, 2008, referendum petitioners submitted over 11,000 signatures to the City Recorder, which effectively held the council ordinance in abeyance while the Lane County Elections Division counted and certified the number of valid signatures. Ultimately, the city was notified that the petitioners failed to get the required number of signatures to refer the ordinance to a public vote. The local motor vehicle fuel tax rate, which had been reduced to 3 cents per gallon during the signature certification period, went back to 5 cents per gallon as of April 1. Another council work session was held on January 28, 2008, for a continuation of the council consideration for funding capital street repairs with a bond measure, including discussion concerning ballot timing, bond size and timeframe for a bond measure. At that meeting, council directed staff to come back with a resolution to place an $81 million General Obligation bond on the November 2008 ballot, with the proceeds to be used exclusively for pavement preservation. There was also significant council discussion about the level of project specificity to be included in the bond measure language, which the council indicated they would continue when the resolution came back to them. The work session to discuss that council resolution is scheduled for June 4, 2008. In the meantime, staff continues to research and develop alternatives for the implementation of the other approved elements of the transportation funding package. This work has included identifying policy issues, studying methodologies and researching billing and collection options for a street utility fee, a street/bike path lighting fee, and a capital local option levy. The November election indicated that the council would unlikely be able to implement the gas tax funding component at the eight -cent level in the near future, as recommended by the council subcommittee. This leaves the target revenue generation from the subcommittee's recommended package of street funding options short by almost $2 million per year. The council may need to reconsider other elements of its package funding strategy in light of this limitation. Another significant challenge in the implementation of a street utility fee based on parking and a street/bike path lighting fee will be finding an affordable, efficient collection mechanism for these new street fees. It is staff s belief that the best collection option for these two funding mechanisms is to expand the current EWEB -City joint billing agreement to allow for billing of these transportation system fees within the construct of the EWEB -owned billing system. In September 2007, the EWEB Board agreed to allow EWEB staff to discuss options for using the EWEB billing infrastructure to collect the new city street fees, and staff have met to begin those initial discussions. In the meantime, staff has also initiated a project to research and investigate alternative options available to the city for billing and collecting transportation fees. Lane County, Springfield and other Lane County cities also face shortfalls in transportation funding. A series of dynamic and complex issues related to intergovernmental transportation funding solutions adds both opportunity and uncertainty to the mix. City staff continue to support