Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Carlson that the trip generation numbers before the council <br />were based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual. Ms. Bettman said that a large <br />auto attractor like a building materials store should be charged commensurate with its impact. <br />She asked how such businesses were addressed in the materials before the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the local travel behavior survey referred to in the materials was over ten <br />years old and encouraged that a new survey be done. <br /> <br />Regarding potential fee reductions associated with transportation demand management efforts, <br />Ms. Bettman said that she would like to see language in the ordinance that addressed <br />demonstrated results from such efforts as opposed to simply allowing for adjustments because <br />employers had, for example, a bus pass program, even if no one used it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman called for a sunset provision to be included in the ordinance after the City reached <br />appropriate maintenance levels. Alternatively, the fee could be reduced at that point. She also <br />wanted a provision that stated the intent of the City was to use existing resources now available to <br />fund OM&P, and that TSMF was intended to supplement those dollars. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said current residents should pay for ©M&P for the current system, but not for <br />expansion of the system, which should be paid for by new development. He did not know of <br />another way to pay for system expansion other than outside, supplemental funding. Mr. Rayor <br />asked if staff had heard from the Chamber of Commerce or the Lane County Homebuilders <br />Association regarding the proposed ordinances. He said that the ordinances would affect the cost <br />of living, but not the cost of a new home, and the council needed to be clear who was affected <br />and why. Mr. Corey said that staff received input from a variety of sources. He did not know the <br />chamber's position. Mr. Rayor requested copies of the input gathered through the public outreach <br />process. Mr. Corey said that staff could provide a compilation of the written responses, but <br />cautioned that the written responses were not representative of all the input received. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly hoped that the staff would work with the councilors to introduce amendments to the <br />TSMF ordinance regarding the suggested provisions that staff chose not to incorporate. He also <br />asked if the ordinance regarding the TSMF needed to be revised to indicate that the funding could <br />be used for alleys as well as streets. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> conduct a public hearing on July 22, 2002, on an ordinance concerning <br /> transportation system maintenance fees. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson said that the purpose of the public hearing was to elicit the type of response in which <br />Mr. Rayor was interested. He believed that the council had discussed the subject to the degree <br />possible. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson supported the motion to hold a public hearing but said it did not imply support for <br />either ordinance. She wanted to hear more from the public about whether the need was <br />understood. Mr. Rayor concurred, and said he reserved the right to request an additional public <br />hearing at a later time. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor indicated opposition to the motion, although she might have supported it if the public <br />hearing was to occur in September rather than July. She noted that funding options were not <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 14 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />