Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, speaking on behalf of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, said <br />given the likelihood that the 2 cent gas tax would be referred to voters and then repealed if the council ~ <br />chose to keep it, the decision before the council was whether it would be better off spending the next <br />several months engaged in another debate about a gas tax or using the time to make the case to the public <br />for a bond measure to pay for street repairs. He felt to do so without the gas tax competing with the <br />message to the public would benefit the potential bond measure. He related the Chamber's <br />recommendation which was to choose the latter course of action. He believed that the energy to be spent <br />on the gas tax would be better served in working with others who were focusing on a comprehensive <br />funding package in the Oregon Legislature to be approved in the 2009 session. He stated that the Eugene <br />Chamber and "virtually every" leading business organization and trade association in the State of Oregon <br />was asking the legislature to approve a package that would provide the funding that was needed for the <br />operation and maintenance of the transportation infrastructure throughout the state, counties, and cities. <br />He understood why the City would not want to part with the $1.7 million tkat the 2 cent gas tax generated <br />per year. He felt that choosing to let the 2 cent tax sunset for the time being would allow the council and <br />the Budget Committee to identify other sources of existing revenue or a portion of the capital reserves to <br />offset the reduction "at least for a couple of years" He also thought this would be looked upon favorably <br />by the voters. <br />Ron Tyree, 4000 Spring Boulevard, Ward 2, stated that he operated a local distributorship. He supported <br />the upgrade needed in transportation and fuel taxes as a source of revenue for those repairs. He did not <br />support taxes that were different throughout different jurisdictions. He averred that this caused confusion <br />and an unfair competitive advantages or disadvantages for local gasoline marketers. He said the price <br />discrepancy was also causing people to shift their fuel purchases to other areas. He related that the <br />volume for the area had dropped from 80 million gallons per year to 70 million gallons per year, a 12 <br />percent drop in volume. He attributed this drop solely to the gas tax. He reiterated that there was a <br />consolidated group that was working at the legislative level to improve the state gasoline tax. He believed ~ <br />there was a"real chance" that this could be positive and successful. He declared that Eugene stood to <br />gain $4 million per year if the tax, as proposed, went through. This was equivalent to a 6 cent per gallon <br />tax. He thought a local tax would cause people to oppose any tax at all. He recommended allowing the 2 <br />cent tax to sunset. He said if the statewide effort failed in 2009 he would help support a countywide gas <br />tax. <br />Paul Romain, 707 Southwest Washington Street, #927, representing the Oregon Petroleum Association <br />(OPA), pledged that the OPA would work for a 12 to 14 cent increase in the state gasoline tax to be <br />implemented immediately upon approval of the legislation. He said the part that would go to local <br />government would be negotiated. He stressed the OPA opposition to local gas ta~ces. He implored the <br />council to not "put [them] in the position of having to put the gas tax on the ballot." <br />John Anderson, 3340 King Edwards Court, Ward 4, voiced his opposition to the 2 cent gas tax. He felt <br />the public had already voted on whether it wanted a gas tax by reducing the amount of fuel purchased <br />locally. He said while people had not changed their driving habits, they had changed their purchasing <br />habits. He averred that he would be the "first to step up" to help find a more local solution if the <br />legislative session did not result in improved funding. <br />Murphy McHugh, 1848 Russet Drive, echoed the comments of those in support of the sunset clause. He <br />averred that the council had "penalized" him for being a gas station owner in,the City of Eugene. He said <br />if he sold gasoline five blocks away from his current location the fuel would be 5 cents cheaper. He <br />related that his business was down and this had resulted in having to lay off people. He pointed out that <br />one large chain store that sold gas would have people backed up eight cars deep just because the gas there <br />was a few cents cheaper per gallon than in other places. He also felt that people in Florence who formerly ~ <br />went to Eugene to shop and purchase gas now stayed home because the gas was cheaper there. He noted <br />City Council Agenda page 176 <br />