Laserfiche WebLink
This proposal means, in part, that the foflowing current draft TransPlan <br /> language must be made more specific: <br /> <br /> "Increase revenues through the development of a locally controlled source of <br /> revenue equitably tied to afl 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 will make it clear to the public that it <br /> will be adopted and that it will be one of a short list of revenue types. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the motion. She said that maintenance of the existing system was a <br />fundamental City responsibility. Whatever revenue was available should be dedicated to funding <br />that basic service before new infrastructure was funded. Failure to maintain and preserve the <br />existing road system would mean the community would have to go back at great expense and <br />rebuild it. The funding list contained projects that were funded by dollars that could otherwise be <br />used for preservation if the political will existed. Ms. Bettman thought the council needed to <br />commit to getting as much of that funding as possible directed to OM&P before money was <br />allocated to new projects. Any new local transportation revenue contemplated by the metropolitan <br />area or by a particular jurisdiction should be adopted after that occurred. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that the subject was most important, and it was critical that preservation be <br />funded. It was foolish not to put maintenance first. She said that the issue was the "fall on the <br />sword" issue for her. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said the motion established a primacy for OM&P. He was not in favor of the second <br />component of the motion, preferring the original language: "a locally controlled source of revenue <br />equitably tied to all users of the transportation system." He had no interest in the MPC or even <br />the council determining that these were the only revenue types that would be considered for <br />certain purposes. Mr. Meisner supported language that gave local jurisdictions flexibility to adopt <br />a locally controlled source of revenue equitably tied to all system users. He was unsure of his <br />position on the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he was not calling for fully funded OM&P, but rather that the roads be no further <br />degraded. He did not want the motion characterized as OM&P versus new projects; instead, he <br />was calling for a new revenue to fill the gap if revenues were not adequate. To Mr. Meisner's <br />concern about the second element of the motion, he invited alternative language, saying he was <br />not attempting to restrict or stipulate the revenue sources over the 20-year planning period. He <br />said he was trying to get at the fact that Eugene and Springfield had $160 million in OM&P <br />shortfalls, and the two communities would have to come up with new money for that, and he <br />wanted to make that clear in TransPlan. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner thought the reference that the local revenue would be one of a short list of revenue <br />types limited the options, and he objected to that limitation. Mr. Kelly clarified that prior to <br />TransPlan adoption, he proposed to limit the options to a finite set. Mr. Meisner was not willing to <br />do so. He did not want to attempt to figure out 20 years from now what was equitable and locally <br />controlled. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />