Laserfiche WebLink
capacity that was being used by development was on the existing system, the City had the ability to <br />collect a reimbursement component of the SDC. Ms. Bettman said the City had projected <br />shortfalls in maintenance and preservation, and noted that the reimbursement fee would realize <br />about $700,000, not entirely meeting the need that existed but making a difference in the future. <br />She thought that passage of the amendment would demonstrate the council's commitment to road <br />preservation and maintenance to the public if the council had to ask it to make a similar <br />commitment to road preservation funds in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson said that the City planned to do just what Ms. Bettman indicated, but pointed out that <br />the City had a policy not to dedicate such resources to a specific use. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said he did not oppose the intent of the motion but was concerned about maintaining <br />flexibility. He asked for more information about the reimbursement fee, because he thought the <br />SDC was intended for capacity. Mr. Klein indicated that Ms. Bettman's summary was correct, and <br />the City had considerable flexibility in terms of the reimbursement fee. Mr. Rayor expressed <br />concern that the motion would remove flexibility from the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said that the council had been made aware of the need for preservation of the existing <br />system, but he wanted to see the entire picture. He asked how the committee felt about the <br />motion. Ms. Bettman said there was general support for the reimbursement fee and having a <br />revenue split available for maintenance and preservation, although no discussion of the amendment <br />was on the floor. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly indicated support for the amendment, saying that it merely directed the manager to bring <br />back wording for further action. Regarding the issue of flexibility and the dedication of funds, he <br />said that he would not mind wording that indicated the Budget Committee could redirect the <br />funding. He perceived the amendment not as an earmark of funds, but as a declaration of council <br />intent. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the reimbursement component of the SDC should help maintain the capacity of <br />what the City already owned. <br /> <br />Responding to the comments of Mr. Pap~, Mr. Kelly said that the council would also discusses <br />transportation funding on March 13 and the issue could be part of that discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the amendment because it merely directed the manager to return with <br />language. He added that he was not persuaded that adoption of the amendment violated the <br />council's goals and policies. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if the amendment meant the funding would be available for road improvements <br />everywhere in the community. Mr. Carlson said yes. Mr. McVey emphasized that the <br />reimbursement fee could only be used on projects in the adopted Capital Improvement Program <br />(CIP). <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />