Laserfiche WebLink
Responding to Mr. Kelly's remarks at the request of Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lyle characterized the rate- <br />setting process as extremely complex. The issue was further complicated by the fact the <br />community was going through the TransPlan adoption process at the same time, and many <br />TransPlan-related issues had influenced the committee's discussion. Mr. Lyle believed that the <br />committee wanted to further the goals of TransPlan through the transportation SDC, and there <br />was a lot of energy on the part of the committee in wanting to work through the finer nuances of <br />the issues involved in the rate-setting process. He believed the process would be done in the <br />next four to six months. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Lyle, saying there was no one to blame for the schedule slip. <br />She likened the effort of rate setting to "breaking trail." She reminded the council that it gave the <br />committee the goal of full cost recovery. Defining "full cost" and allocating capacity was very <br />complex, and there was limited available research on the topic. Ms. Bettman said that in some <br />ways, the committee had been trying to "reinvent the wheel." The committee worked extensively <br />on a methodology only to find that there were some significant contradictions in that approach and <br />some question of its equitability. The committee subsequently adopted another approach. She <br />believed the process would be completed shortly. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor believed that the Ad hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning strategy of <br />reduced SDCs in the downtown core needed to be incorporated into the SDC methodology now or <br />it would not happen. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor reiterated his previous remarks about the need to schedule projects even if they are not <br />funded. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor anticipated a future budget crunch and he would not accept a "hurry up and rush" <br />budget measure for a project if one was proposed. He needed information about relative priorities <br />and dollars available. <br /> <br />Regarding the current work load, Mr. Rayor questioned where the corridor studies were located in <br />the goals report. He said they were related to sustainable community growth. Mr. Johnson said <br />that those studies were in TransPlan and the Arterial and Collector Street Plan. He said that it <br />was the role of the council to suggest what should become a council goal. If the inclusion of <br />corridor studies was important to Mr. Rayor, he should mention it. He suggested that corridor <br />studies were not a council goal, and that there was another process to heighten the studies as a <br />priority. He offered to work with Mr. Rayor on the topic. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks regarding the importance of the goal of fair, stable, <br />and adequate resources. She did not think that the property tax was fair or equitable. Ms. Taylor <br />did not think the council needed to form a committee, but it should have a serious discussion of <br />possible new revenues. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said the council should not have goals that took up 100 percent of the <br />organization's time because of the impact of new and emerging, unanticipated issues on the City. <br />She asked the council to be cautious in the number of goals it set. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson commended the key strategic issues document. She said it had an impact on how <br />she considered the goals. She highlighted privacy issues and e-government, the 2000 census <br />and changes in community demographics that had an impact on service delivery, and how the City <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2001 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />