Laserfiche WebLink
County was based on needs, priorities, and area-wide projects, and not apportioned by jurisdiction. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Mayor Torrey's suggestion that voters needed to be told what would be lost <br />if revenue to sustain the system wasn't available. He commented that too often, last-minute <br />solutions were found and voters might not take seriously the potential loss of services. <br /> <br />Mr. Taylor commented that the council would discuss stormwater program budget problems on <br />August 11, 2003, along with a continued discussion of transportation funds. He said if the council <br />decided to live with the current revenue streams, it would mean a substantial reduction in services <br />and a reprioritizing of expenditures and Mr. Corey had presented some possible alternatives. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson remarked that while the anticipated increase in funds of $900,000 was insufficient <br />to address the budget shortfall, it could be perceived by some as a doubling of funding. She said <br />the Sidewalk Program contained criteria to determine where sidewalks were needed and <br />considered such factors as proximity to a school or bus stop. Regarding Mr. Papa's request for <br />information on the distribution of road funds, she stated an interest in reviewing the distribution of <br />those funds between Eugene and Springfield over the past ten years. She also wondered whether <br />road condition was a factor in the distribution. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed with Mayor Torrey on the need for a different approach to maintaining the <br />existing infrastructure. She saw the current system as enabling the expenditure of money on new <br />capacity because funds came from the County earmarked for specific projects. She said that twice <br />since January a proposal had come before the council with a funding package for a new road and <br />the multi-jurisdictional arrangement that allowed Lane County to collect assessments for the City <br />portion and resulted in the County Road Fund being used for increased capacity, rather than SDCs. <br />She said the council should state that County Road Funds could only be used for capital <br />preservation. She said the issue of TMA funds had been raised at MPC meetings and she had <br />advocated using the money for capital preservation. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct staff to prepare a <br /> proposal to use any TMA funds for capital preservation. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Kelly to include operations and maintenance <br />as a use for any TMA funds. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman explained that her intent was to enable staff to propose to MPC, based on City <br />Council direction, a request for funds for capital preservation, maintenance, and operations, rather <br />than for a particular project. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey clarified that the intent of the motion was not to make a decision regarding the <br />disposition of TMA funds, but rather to ask the City Manager to prepare a proposal for City <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />