Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Fuel Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albany staff to test 5¢ and 7.5¢ local fuel‑tax options in public outreach after council discussion
Summary
After staff presented revenue estimates and outreach findings, the council asked staff to continue public outreach using 5¢ and 7.5¢ per‑gallon scenarios and discussed election timing and whether to include a sunset clause; no ballot action was taken Sept. 10.
City staff asked the Albany City Council for directional input on a possible local fuel tax on Sept. 10 and the council narrowed, for outreach purposes, the rate scenarios staff should test with the public.
Director Bailey told councilors the city has conducted 13 presentations and public‑outreach activities on local street funding. Bailey said local focus groups and surveys had shown the most support for 5¢ and 10¢ per gallon options, and that staff currently estimate the city would generate about $400,000 in revenue per penny of local tax based on Albany fuel sales data. Bailey presented sample annual yields for common rates: 3¢ ≈ $1.2 million; 5¢ ≈ $2.0 million; 10¢ ≈ $4.0 million; and 15¢ ≈ $6.0 million, noting the city’s identified gap for street funding is larger than those numbers and that the 15¢ rate would exceed current statewide local rates.
Councilors debated tradeoffs between voter palatability and revenue. Several members argued a modest rate is likelier to pass; others said higher revenue is needed to show visible progress. After discussion, staff said they would frame outreach around two options: 5¢ and 7.5¢ per gallon, and report back on public response. Councilors also discussed target election timing (options included a special March election, May 2026, November 2026, and May 2027). Several councilors favored November 2026 for higher turnout and time for public education; others said a later May date could avoid partisan even‑year dynamics. No final scheduling decision was made.
The council also debated whether a measure should include a temporary sunset (consultant work showed many respondents favored a five‑year sunset to increase support). Opinions diverged: some councilors favored no sunset to preserve long‑term planning; others said a sunset or renewal requirement could make the measure more palatable. Staff said they would include options and potential sunset language in materials for community outreach.
Bailey emphasized that if the council later approves a ballot title and files it with the county, staff will be legally limited in what they can say during the formal campaign period and that outside groups and council members would need to carry outreach and advocacy through that timeframe.
Next steps: staff will conduct outreach testing the 5¢ and 7.5¢ scenarios, report survey results and public feedback to the council, and return with refined options for council consideration and any ballot title that the council chooses to advance.
