CC Minutes - 04/04/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Schwetz said that the plan contained a list of potential revenue options. He emphasized the policy nature of the plan and noted it was not specific as to implementation, particularly in terms of how a jurisdiction addressed its shortfalls in ©M&P. He referred the council to Chapter 3, page 62, which included various revenue shortfall strategies. Mr. Kelly suggested the reference Mr. Meisner objected to be replaced with a reference to the relevant funding strategies called out in the plan. He wanted to commit the jurisdictions to adopting something. Mr. Rayor said he would probably vote no on the motion because most of the ©M&P shortfall, outside that of the State, was that of the City of Eugene. While he fundamentally agreed with the policy and thought it could be promoted inside Eugene, he did not think it had to be included in a regional plan. If the council wanted the other jurisdictions to share its vision of TransPlan, it needed to "save its ammunition" at this point, given the MPC's past reaction to the council's proposed finance policy, which was similar in nature. Ms. Bettman said that it was her understanding that Eugene was using all the flexible funding it now received from the County for OM&P, and there was other flexible funding that could be spent on ©M&P in the right-of-way that was now being dedicated to projects. The flexibility in that funding regionally was eliminated because "other people were making that decision for us." Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. Continuing, Ms. Bettman said that the Budget Citizen Subcommittee was looking at new revenue sources to cover maintenance and preservation of the existing system, and she anticipated the City would ask the citizens for money for ©M&P while also asking them for more funds to build new infrastructure. She did not think that was the correct approach. She thought if the council dedicated all available funding to ©M&P it could go to the citizens with a clear conscience and ask for more funding for new projects. Mr. Johnson clarified that 98 percent of the transportation dollars controlled by the City of Eugene over the last ten years had been used for ©M&P. He said that the State and federal dollars allocated to specific projects could not be used for anything but the project. Mr. Johnson said the City of Eugene was not funding new construction of roads and had not for ten years, except for projects paid for by systems development charges and assessments. He confirmed that the funding controlled by the County could be used for ©M&P rather than for road projects. County Commissioner Peter Sorenson concurred with Mr. Johnson and noted that Eugene received some gas tax dollars directly from the State that were not passed through the County. The County had a road partnership program with the 12 Lane County cities, and Eugene received the largest share of those dollars. That program was likely to continue. Mr. Sorenson agreed with Ms. Bettman about the importance of adequate funding of ©M&P. Mr. Kelly acknowledged that Eugene's ©M&P shortfall was much larger than Springfield's, but pointed out (::)DOT had a much larger shortfall, and the proposed policy was intended to speak as a metropolitan area to (::)DOT and emphasize the need for adequate State ©M&P funding. In addition, if the council decided it was an issue for Eugene alone, some of the revenue sources mentioned in the plan could not be done alone; for example, a vehicle registration fee had to be done in conjunction with the County. He preferred a regional approach, but said that if there was a Eugene policy in TransPlan that had "buy-in" from the other jurisdictions about revenue sources MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 10 Work Session