Laserfiche WebLink
reiterated that three motions provided internal consistency in the document. He hoped the City <br />could convince its partners to move to some extent on the issues under consideration. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said he would probably vote for the motion if he was present for the vote. However, he <br />believed more discussion about the funding was needed with the City's interjurisdictional partners. <br />While he agreed about the importance of nodal development to the success of the plan, Mr. Farr <br />said the council needed to realize it was creating competition for funding for projects by passing <br />the motion. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Ms. Childs said that the $5 million for planning added to <br />TransPlan by the MPC was predicated on the City's experience with the Royal node, which was <br />mostly underwritten by grant funds. The $5 million assumed continued receipt of a certain level of <br />grant funding. <br /> <br />Regarding the proposed funding, Ms. Bettman clarified that it would not limit the community to <br />external funding sources, but would mean a line item for nodal implementation would be included <br />in the constrained plan. Also speaking to the mayor's comments, Ms. Bettman said that the plan <br />did not address many of the issues that had been of importance to her. She said that nodal <br />development, adequate OM&P funding, and an effective BRT system were her "bottom line," <br />because she thought those elements were what "hold the plan together." If the motion passed, <br />she could support the plan in good conscience because it would fulfill the objectives of the plan <br />and the community. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson said that one of the difficulties facing the council was that TransPlan combined policy <br />with revenue, which was different from other policy documents the council adopted. In this case, <br />the council was being asked to combine a financial plan with a policy plan, and he was not sure <br />that the council could do it. He said that none of the agencies had the funding to do what the <br />motion was proposing, particularly around OM&P. Mr. Kelly responded that if none of the <br />agencies had the money to implement nodal development, "let's be intellectually honest" and take <br />the nodes out of the plan and rerun the model. Mr. Johnson said he was not suggesting that; <br />instead, he was suggesting that staff be given the direction to develop the financial alternatives to <br />implement nodal development. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor thought the manager's point interesting. He thought the amount of funding for nodal <br />development should be determined, and funding options developed. The community should take <br />advantage of grants where it could. He anticipated any revenue specific to the transportation <br />system, as a transportation utility fee (TUF), would go to OM&P. He suggested that staff could <br />draft a policy that stipulated every grant received for transportation planning went first to nodal <br />development. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs determined from Mr. Kelly that his reference to funding in TransPlan to pay for <br />implementation of infrastructure that would not be built in a typical development referred to the <br />incremental difference between that infrastructure and the infrastructure required for nodal <br />development. Ms. Childs estimated that cost at 10 percent to 15 percent above the cost of <br />infrastructure for typical development. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr left the meeting. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />