CC Minutes - 11/27/06 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Speaking to her motion, Councilor Bettman stated that currently the City had dedicated funding for operations, maintenance, and preservation (OMP) from system development charges (SDC) reimbursement fees, some road funds and other sources. She said her intent was that the percentage of those moneys from existing transportation revenues should stay dedicated to OMP. She did not want TSMF revenues to displace those funds so they could be used for other purposes. She said the reason it was a percentage instead of a number was because transportation funding overall with inflation would increase and she wanted the percentage dedicated to OMP to remain the same. Councilor Kelly indicated that he strongly supported the idea of not backfilling other things because the TSMF was in place. He asked if there was potential for a legal problem as certain funds were statutorily earmarked and a large appropriation for a specific improvement project would skew the percentages and make it mathematically impossible to comply. Public Works Director Kurt Corey replied that if the intent was to ensure existing resources were allocated in the same way he did not see a problem. Mr. Lidz said that without knowing all of the funding sources in the year in which the ordinance would take effect it would be difficult to determine the impact. He said if there were no current earmarks and if the purpose was to maintain the same percentage of the current group of funds he saw no problem. Councilor Kelly withdrew his concern as the ordinance spoke to percentages as of the effective date of the ordinance and if there were earmarks in the future the issue could be revisited with a specific focused amendment to the ordinance at that time. He said he would support the amendment. Councilor Papé said he also supported the essence of the amendment but had concerns similar to those expressed by Councilor Kelly. He asked if General Funds currently went into the transportation system. City Manager Taylor said for the first time the council by policy had authorized a $1.5 million one-time allocation of General Fund money for pavement preservation. Mr. Corey pointed out there was a nominal amount of General Fund money transferred each year to cover activities such as street lighting on the off- street bike paths, transportation planning, and traffic calming that were in the general category of transpor- tation but not eligible for road funds. Councilor Papé was reluctant to take away options from the Budget Committee as the General Fund fluctuated, but demands increased by insisting the same percentage come from the General Fund in the future as it did currently. He asked how short-term or one-time funding would affect the percentages. Mr. Corey responded with the example of current funding received from Lane County through the partnership program, 100 percent of which was allocated to OMP. He said to the extent that funding streams ebbed and flowed, the percentage could remain the same, but the actual dollars would differ. Councilor Papé offered a friendly amendment to exclude General Fund money from the formula. Councilor Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Bettman said that Councilor Papé raised a valid point as she did not want to rule out the opportunity for more funds to be available for OMP but she wanted to assure that funds currently dedicated to OMP would not be replaced with TSMF revenues so the existing revenue could be used for something else. Councilor Bettman restated her motion as follows: Move to amend the main mo- tion to add a new subsection (3) to section 7.760 of the ordinance as follows: “As long as the TSMF is collected at least the same percentage of all current transporta- tion revenue, other than General Fund revenue, that is allocated to OMP on the ef- MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting