Laserfiche WebLink
to identify. He noted that the fiscal constraint scenario in TransPlan discussed the Road Fund <br />dollars underwritten by federal timber receipts, which could result in more revenues to Lane <br />County for use on roads beyond 2004. He said that it was likely reprogramming of existing <br />funding would have to occur for nodal development to be funded at the level proposed. Mr. Farr <br />confirmed that the funding would then compete with other projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the first and second motion and had questions about the third. He said <br />that a fundamental principle of TransPlan was the inseparability of land use and transportation <br />planning. He had been troubled that the plan only funded projects and did not indicate how nodal <br />development would be implemented. He emphasized the importance of nodal development and <br />said if the plan was not explicit about the seriousness of the topic, he would not support the plan. <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion even if it meant other projects were not funded. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor supported the motion, pointing out that the council did not have to determine the <br />source of funds at this time. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 indicated appreciation for Mr. Farr's remarks. He said that just because TransPlan did <br />not contain the funding did not mean the City would not be working to implement nodal <br />development. Ms. Childs concurred, and noted the expenditures the City had made to date in <br />support of nodal development. At this time, the level of planning for the other nodes was not <br />specific in terms of projected costs. She reminded the council that TransPlan addressed <br />regional-level projects rather than every single project in the Capital Improvement Program or <br />every project the City might do to support its nodal development efforts. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Meisner as to the importance of integrating land use and <br />transportation planning, and thought the strategies in TransPlan would take the community in <br />areas it had never been before, whereas the last TransPlan had consisted predominantly of road <br />projects. Nodal development was a fundamental strategy in the plan, and just as viable for <br />transportation mobility as any of the road projects in the plan, and possibly more cost-effective <br />than road projects. She supported the motion. <br /> <br />City Manager Jim Johnson pointed out that motions 1 and 3 addressed transportation revenue <br />questions, and reminded the council that the Budget Committee was preparing recommendations <br />for transportation funding that it would consider later in April. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey noted that the council's recommendation would next go to the MPC for further <br />resolution. He said he would excuse himself from the next MPC meeting, and asked Mr. Meisner <br />to serve as his alternate to ensure the council majority had an opportunity to present its position to <br />the MPC. He asked if the council was then prepared to "fall on its sword" if the MPC did not <br />accept the recommendations, or if it was prepared to work with other MPC members on proposals <br />acceptable to all adopting bodies. <br />Mr. Kelly said his goal in preparing the motion was to make TransPlan internally consistent. If the <br />community was to rely on nodal development, it needed to spend money on it. He acknowledged <br />the comments of Mr. Pap8 regarding the fact other sources of funds were being used to support <br />nodal development, and the comments of Mr. Farr regarding the lack of other revenues, but <br />thought the plan must include a funding figure for nodal development based on what it would cost <br />to make the projected number of nodes happen. Speaking to the mayor's comments, Mr. Kelly <br />said that he had given up on many things in TransPlan that were really important to him, and <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />