CC minutes - 09/24/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Eugene could fund its preservation and maintenance backlog. Ms. Bettman said the City's choices would not affect the decisions of its partner agencies in TransPlan. Ms. Bettman noted that there were two new capital facilities in the 2004 CIP and both were intended to be paid for by assessments and SDCs. One project, the Avalon Legacy project, was partially underwritten by Lane County Road Funds, which could also be used on maintenance and preservation. However, the council had not made that choice. The other project, the Chad Drive extension, was offered for the STP funding, which could also be used for maintenance and preservation. Ms. Bettman believed that if the City asked residents to financially support maintenance and preservation, it was %bligated" to spend every available dollar on that purpose as well. Mr. Kelly agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. He recalled that on July 28, the council passed a motion directing staff to prepare a proposal that directed any transportation management area dollars for operations, preservation, and maintenance; this was the first opportunity for staff to implement that direction, and he was surprised that it was not followed. The motion would underscore the council's action of July 28. He said that the motion also sent a signal to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the City's priorities related to operations and maintenance. Mr. Meisner clarified with Ms. Bettman that the reference to ~they" in the motion was a reference to Springfield and Lane County. He indicated support for the motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding how bicycle path projects selected for funding were chosen, Mr. Schoening said that those projects were selected because these funds were the only funds the City had to maintain its off-street bicycle paths. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Schoening said that the funding of the Chad Drive extension would include a combination of assessments, STP funds, and systems development charge revenues. Ms. Taylor recalled that Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green had asked the council why it did not fund maintenance with County Road Funds if that was a concern. She asked how the City maintained its bicycle paths in the absence of the transportation system maintenance fee. Mr. Carlson responded that the City had not been preserving its bicycle paths. General Fund dollars were used to sweep bicycle paths and do minor repairs. Mayor Torrey said that in August 2003, the MPC established the criteria for the allocations process. Staff followed the criteria established by the MPC in developing the project list. If the City elected to change the criteria, which was a change the MPC declined to make, it would require at least one vote in support of the changes from each jurisdiction to get the changes to the criteria adopted. Neither Springfield representative supported the changes. Mayor Torrey suggested that the council schedule another discussion of the allocation process. Ms. Bettman said that the MPC had to have at least one vote from Eugene to proceed with the changes. She had supported the criteria because of what she was told about the flexibility of the funding. However, it seemed to be a problem in all three categories. Road maintenance did not rise to the top of the list in the Preservation category; the bicycle projects did. While she acknowledged the need, she questioned whether it was a higher priority that other projects. Ms. Bettman said that the dollars in the Planning category appeared to fund ongoing planning efforts MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 11 Work Session