Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />B. Strategies for Long-Term Financial Stability for Transportation System Operations, <br />Maintenance, and Preservation. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor acknowledged the successful actions implemented by the City Council to close some of <br />the gaps in the Pavement Preservation Program and its recognition of the growing concern in the mainte- <br />nance/operation of the Streets Program. <br /> <br />Public Works Executive Director Kurt Corey referred to discussions of previous council work sessions <br />around the funding of the $2 million annual deficit in the Operations and Maintenance Budget portion of the <br />Road Fund and the $4.5 million annual deficit in the Capital Preservation/Transportation Funding. He said <br />that the recommendations put before the council on February 15 to 1) address the operations and <br />maintenance shortfall through the combination of shifting the cost of the existing services to other funds and <br />establishing one or more new fees for services to underwrite the difference, and to 2) address the capital <br />preservation backlog have been crafted by staff through a series of options to be considered by the council. <br /> <br />The council, by consensus, agreed to consider each option as a separate motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to include in the <br />FY07 Proposed Budget a shift in a portion of the funding for the Street Trees/Median <br />Maintenance Program (total program costs of approximately $1,310,000) from the Road <br />Fund to the Stormwater Fund, with the remainder of the program funding to be provided <br />from other city fees or funds. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to shift the funding to the General Fund, rather than <br />the Stormwater Fund. The amendment failed due to a lack of a second. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commented that since the Street Tree Funding was not included in the Road Fund in the past, he <br />understood the logic to remove the funding. He said he would support the motion; however, he clarified with <br />staff that the motion only spoke to one-half of the funding, and concluded that a proposal would need to be <br />brought back to the council with regard to the balance of the funding. <br /> <br />Mr. Pape? stated he supported the motion and pointed out that stormwater has significantly improved and <br />been contained by street trees, vegetation, and medians. He said that any increase to the stormwater fees <br />must be discussed independently of this proposed option. Mr. Corey pointed out that the Stormwater <br />Program was currently operating at the minimum level to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination <br />System (NPDES) permit requirement, together with add-ons that have been implemented in the past few <br />years. Mr. Pape? stressed that the entire issue was complex and must be reviewed in detail by the council. <br />Mr. Corey said that staff can provide council with an overview of modifications that have been made over <br />the past few years to the Stormwater Fund since the major reductions were taken. City Manager Taylor <br />added that such a discussion would ensue as part of the Budget Committee’s consideration if the motion <br />passes. Mr. Corey pointed out that a stormwater rate increase can be set as an administrative action without <br />council approval. Mr. Pape? reiterated that a review of the stormwater fees should ensue at the council level <br />prior to any increase in those fees. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor concurred with Mr. Pape? that a discussion should ensue prior to any increase in stormwater fees. <br />He said he supported the motion. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />