CC Minutes - 07/28/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Kelly's statements. She asked how the $900,000 in new funds from the State under House Bill 2041 would be spent. Mr. Corey responded that under the proposal before the council, the funds would be added to the State Highway Trust Fund revenue and spent on the activities listed under road fund operations on the flowchart. Ms. Bettman observed that the cost of street lighting for FY01 was shown as $559,688 and in FY03 it was up to $787,000. She asked why there was such a large increase in cost. Mr. Corey said a primary factor was the increase in costs for electricity for street lights and signals. Referring to the two policy issues stated earlier by Mr. Corey, Ms. Bettman said there should be a third issue: reprioritize spending of the road and other eligible funds to support the current service level before adding any new infrastructure. She observed the flowchart showed $2.1 million in special federal, State, and County grants that would be used for new streets and enhanced capacity and said that was because the City did not charge enough SDCs to cover the cost of new growth. She felt that funds being spent on new infrastructure should be spent on capital preservation and operations and maintenance and new fees should be charged for new projects. She said she was unwilling to consider new fees and existing funds should be better prioritized. Ms. Nathanson asked for clarification of how charges would be passed on to the end user under franchise fees and license agreements. Mr. Corey replied the broad concept was to look at existing franchise fees and agreements to determine if any adjustments were in order and collections would be done in the same manner. He used the example of a utility company paying four percent and there was capacity to increase the rate to five percent, the increase would be passed along to the company. Ms. Nathanson asked how the community's designation as a transportation management area (TMA) would result in additional revenue. Mr. Corey said the designation brought additional STP funding and existing operations should be reviewed to identify which activities would be eligible for the use of STP funds. He said that determination was underway and ultimately the decision would be made by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). Referring to the suggestion to create street light districts, Ms. Nathanson asked if the City had talked with Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) or the American Public Power Association (APPA) about efficiencies or economies that could be realized in the operation of street lights. She noted that while the cost of street lighting continued to increase, Eugene actually had fewer street lights than many other cities. Mr. Corey responded that staff had consulted with EWEB on the energy-saving options available to address the cost of street lighting. He said the concept of street light districts offered a means to get lighting into a neighborhood and support the ongoing costs. Hypothetically, he said that if the operating fund shortfall was not resolved and one of the services eliminated was street lighting, districts could be a way to restore that service. Ms. Nathanson questioned the efficiency of a street lighting district where the City would need to maintain an inventory and adjust billings when lights were added or removed. She commented that MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 8 Work Session