Laserfiche WebLink
new revenue sources will be used for roadway/bike improvements whose <br /> funding has been moved to OM&P, in accordance with the previous <br /> paragraph, and for the remaining OM&P shortfall. <br /> <br /> This proposal means, in part, that the following current draft TransPlan <br /> language must be made more specific: <br /> "Increase revenues through the development of a locally controlled source of <br /> revenue equitably tied to all users of the transportation system..." <br /> <br /> Note this proposal does not require each jurisdiction to adopt the same <br /> revenue source. It merely requires that, to the extent that a new revenue <br /> source is required, the adopting officials make it clear to the public that it will <br /> be adopted and that it will be one of a short list of revenue types. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said he preferred that the motion be trifurcated. <br /> <br /> Mr. PapS, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to separate the three issues. The <br /> motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly voting no, and the motion <br /> became three separate motions. <br /> <br />The council considered the first motion: <br /> <br /> (1) Nodal Development Funding: The council supports and applauds the <br /> March Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) action that added $5 million for <br /> planning activities for nodal development over the 20-year plan life. <br /> However, the plan has no identified funding for costs of capital work related <br /> to nodal implementation. Without such funding, nodal <br /> implementation--critical to TransPlan's success-is unlikely to happen. <br /> <br /> The council proposes that funding be included in TransPlan for <br /> implementation of infrastructure that would not be built in typical <br /> development. Such funds would be used in both greenfield and <br /> redevelopment nodes for such features as street modifications, for <br /> pedestrian amenities, transit centers and public open space. We propose <br /> that staff determine an appropriate level of funding and suggest funding <br /> sources to the adopting officials. Staff should also propose guidance <br /> language for TransPlan that outlines criteria for identifying eligible project and <br /> provides a list of the types of features (e.g., street modifications) that would <br /> be included in the funding line item. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart asked if the motion related to nodal development was funding above what had already <br />been identified. Ms. Childs said yes. Mr. Fart asked if it was realistic to think other fund sources <br />could be identified. Tom Schwetz, TransPlan Project Manager, Lane Council of Governments, did <br />not know. Mr. Fart said that it appeared there may be no funding available. Ms. Childs clarified <br />that the motion directed staff to determine the appropriate level of funding for nodal development <br />and to suggest funding sources to the adopting officials. It essentially directed staff to do more <br />work. She confirmed that staff would look at the potential of reprogramming existing dollars. Paul <br />Thompson of Lane Council of Governments indicated additional funding sources would be difficult <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />