CC Minutes - 08/12/02 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Pap~ concurred with the remarks of councilors Meisner and Kelly. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in favor. Councilor Rayor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the motion by changing Section 7.750(2). He suggested striking the word "operate" and substitute "maintain and preserve elements of the City's transportation system." He also added a Subsection 3 which would say the following: "The priority purpose of this ordinance is to reduce the back log of pavement deterioration as measured by the City's pavement condition index." Councilor Kelly raised concern with the legal and practical implications of the amendment. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly regarding how the amendment would affect the Public Works Department, Mr. Corey said operations addressed some of the aspects of street maintenance such as street signs, striping, labor costs and other things that were not maintenance and preservation. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly regarding the priority for dealing with the road problem backlog, Councilor Rayor said the whole point of the fee was to address the backlog but noted that this was not mentioned in the ordinance the way it was written. He stressed that the ordinance should be tied to the pavement condition index. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman regarding the use of the word "operations" in the ordinance and whether funding could be used for ongoing public works staffing, Mr. Corey said the previous amendment, approved by the council, was specific as to what revenues from the funding source would be used for. He said the previous motion was self-explanatory and should stand on its own. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman regarding whether Mr. Corey was saying that the funding could not be used for ongoing Public Works staffing, Mr. Corey said there would be overhead costs associated with the program which would translate into staffing. He noted that staffing had been a part of the discussion for the previous ten months. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman regarding whether Mr. Corey was saying that there would be staffing costs above and beyond what was associated with the costs of maintenance and preservation, Mr. Corey said, to the best of his understanding of the question, the answer would be yes. He raised concern that the question was getting restated and added that the program, particularly as amended, was for an overlay and slurry seal program of the existing transportation network including the necessary administrative costs to accommodate that, nothing more and nothing less. Councilor Meisner said he would oppose the amendment. He said that "operate" was not a word used in isolation in the ordinance and was to operate and maintain all transportation-related components located on City owned property, City rights-of-way, City easements, or which the City was contractually or legally obligated to operate and maintain. He said he was comfortable with the existing language. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 12, 2002 Page 13 Regular Meeting