My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC minutes - 09/24/03 WS
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2003
>
CC minutes - 09/24/03 WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:31:35 AM
Creation date
7/8/2005 1:19:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
9/24/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Eugene could fund its preservation and maintenance backlog. Ms. Bettman said the City's <br />choices would not affect the decisions of its partner agencies in TransPlan. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that there were two new capital facilities in the 2004 CIP and both were <br />intended to be paid for by assessments and SDCs. One project, the Avalon Legacy project, was <br />partially underwritten by Lane County Road Funds, which could also be used on maintenance and <br />preservation. However, the council had not made that choice. The other project, the Chad Drive <br />extension, was offered for the STP funding, which could also be used for maintenance and <br />preservation. Ms. Bettman believed that if the City asked residents to financially support <br />maintenance and preservation, it was %bligated" to spend every available dollar on that purpose <br />as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. He recalled that on July 28, the council <br />passed a motion directing staff to prepare a proposal that directed any transportation management <br />area dollars for operations, preservation, and maintenance; this was the first opportunity for staff <br />to implement that direction, and he was surprised that it was not followed. The motion would <br />underscore the council's action of July 28. He said that the motion also sent a signal to the Board <br />of County Commissioners regarding the City's priorities related to operations and maintenance. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner clarified with Ms. Bettman that the reference to ~they" in the motion was a reference <br />to Springfield and Lane County. He indicated support for the motion. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding how bicycle path projects selected for funding <br />were chosen, Mr. Schoening said that those projects were selected because these funds were the <br />only funds the City had to maintain its off-street bicycle paths. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Schoening said that the funding of the Chad Drive <br />extension would include a combination of assessments, STP funds, and systems development <br />charge revenues. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor recalled that Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green had asked the council why it <br />did not fund maintenance with County Road Funds if that was a concern. She asked how the City <br />maintained its bicycle paths in the absence of the transportation system maintenance fee. Mr. <br />Carlson responded that the City had not been preserving its bicycle paths. General Fund dollars <br />were used to sweep bicycle paths and do minor repairs. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that in August 2003, the MPC established the criteria for the allocations <br />process. Staff followed the criteria established by the MPC in developing the project list. If the <br />City elected to change the criteria, which was a change the MPC declined to make, it would <br />require at least one vote in support of the changes from each jurisdiction to get the changes to the <br />criteria adopted. Neither Springfield representative supported the changes. Mayor Torrey <br />suggested that the council schedule another discussion of the allocation process. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the MPC had to have at least one vote from Eugene to proceed with the <br />changes. She had supported the criteria because of what she was told about the flexibility of the <br />funding. However, it seemed to be a problem in all three categories. Road maintenance did not <br />rise to the top of the list in the Preservation category; the bicycle projects did. While she <br />acknowledged the need, she questioned whether it was a higher priority that other projects. Ms. <br />Bettman said that the dollars in the Planning category appeared to fund ongoing planning efforts <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.