Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gas Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
La Grande council weighs local gas tax, street-user fee and other options to pay for roads
Summary
Councilors discussed three funding approaches for road maintenance — a local gas tax (proposed at 3¢–5¢ per gallon or a temporary higher rate), a street-user/sewer fee that the council could adopt without voter approval, or keeping the status quo — and asked staff to bring three concrete ballot or ordinance options to the next meeting.
La Grande — Council members debated a range of options to increase revenue for street repairs, including a local gas tax, adjustments to a street-user (sewer) fee, or leaving current funding unchanged. Staff summarized outreach to date and said additional work is under way to make the street-user fee more equitable before relying on it as the primary revenue source.
Staff member (Speaker 6) described outreach efforts and told the council the goal is to identify approaches that would make a revenue proposal “palatable” to voters. He said staff is exploring both a gas tax — which would capture purchases by nonresidents as well as residents — and a street-user fee that the council could adopt without a public vote.
Councilors outlined three main alternatives: (1) a local gas tax that would capture some nonresident purchases, (2) a sewer/street-user fee set by council without voter approval, and (3) status quo. Council Member 6 proposed two ballot framing options to return to the council: a 5¢ per gallon tax with a limited (10-year) sunset, and a lower 3¢ per gallon tax in perpetuity; he also floated the possibility of a temporary 6¢ rate to accelerate repairs.
Speakers discussed the likely household impacts. Council Member 1 estimated the effect of a 3¢ per gallon increase as roughly 60¢ for a 20-gallon tank and said that equates to about $20–$25 a year for typical drivers; members characterized those estimates as illustrative and attributed them to discussion rather than precise modeling.
Equity and timing were central concerns. Staff said changes to the street-user fee (for example, better accounting for apartment complexes with a single meter) could produce increased revenue in roughly six months to a year. Council members warned that stacking additional measures on the same ballot might reduce support, while others argued putting a measure before voters repeatedly could eventually pass as the community sees continued road deterioration.
Outcome and next steps: Council asked staff to return to the next meeting with three options (for example: 3¢ in perpetuity; 5¢ with a 10-year sunset; and a middle option or temporary limited-duration rate) and a draft resolution so the council can decide which measure, if any, to place on the ballot. No formal vote or binding decision was taken at this meeting.
