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

Home Browse Search

administering such a system seemed burdensome. Mr. Corey remarked that in another jurisdiction where street light districts were used, it had not proved to be burdensome once the system was established. Ms. Nathanson remarked that she understood the logic of including street lights in the road fund because they were related to street safety, but lights were already tied to residents' feelings of safety for themselves and their property and that factor should be considered. Mr. Corey added that street lighting on the arterial, collector, off-street bike path system, and similar areas was a community benefit. Mr. Meisner observed that there were many problems with no solution, or easy combination of solutions. He said that each of the proposed solutions impacted other areas and could potentially exacerbate another problem. As an example, he said the council might consider repealing the TSMF in exchange for increased or different shared funds from the County, yet the County-City Road Partnership Agreement revenues, used for road fund operations, had steadily declined and the TSMF was intended for capital preservation. He expressed a willingness for staff to proceed with researching other revenue sources, but was not optimistic that there was a way to successfully accomplish tax reform that would address those problems. Mr. Meisner commented that although public safety and transportation were given highest priority for public funding, during the budget cycle they were held close to harmless and not increased to cover actual needs, but instead other things were funded that might not rise to the same level of priority. He reviewed the dedicated revenue options for elements of the transportation needs listed in the staff report and noted that while congestion pricing was highly effective, there was no political will to implement it. He was interested in revenue sources that acknowledged use and damage to the system, but none of them could solve the magnitude of the existing budget problem. Mr. Pap~ asked how the new federal courthouse street would be funded. Mr. Corey replied that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contemplated 80 percent of the funds as federal earmark that fell into the category of special federal, State, and County grants and the remaining 20 percent was contemplated as coming from Lane County, which had committed to the 20 percent match on the first phase of the improvements. He said further negotiations would be held with the County on subsequent stages. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City was certain of the cost. Mr. Corey replied that the estimate was as certain as possible at the current stage of project planning. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern that costs could be much higher than estimated. Mr. Pap~ asked if the recommendations contained in the audit report by Mr. Ostrowski had been implemented, including locating the Public Works Department in one facility. Mr. Corey said that most of the recommendations had been implemented, but locating in a single facility was a logistical problem because of the need to find a location that could accommodate functions that were currently spread across three downtown locations. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City's facility plan included bringing Public Works into a single facility. Mr. Taylor replied that it was a goal as space became available. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 9 Work Session