CC Minutes - 06/25/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

identified, which could be done with available discretionary funds, and did not want to limit the City to stabilizing conditions. For that reason, he did not want to be so specific. Mr. Pap~ thought the OM&P backlog a "moving target" and did not want to tie the council's hands. He requested staff comment. David Reinhard of the Public Works Department agreed that the target was to some degree a moving target. He said that there was also the potential issue of adding to the maintenance backlog by the fact some revenue sources were available only for expansion or new projects, and those facilities over time will need maintenance. He agreed, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~, that the issue of a disaster was something to contemplate. Mr. Pap~ indicated reluctance to lock the council into the approach suggested in the motion. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Childs confirmed that TransPlan policies had the force of law. The planning and program actions in Chapter 3 did not have the same status in law as the policies; the motion was a statement of the council's intentions, outside those adopted policies. Mayor Torrey asked if the motion precluded the City from using its discretionary funding as a match for a State capacity enhancement project or new State capital project. Mr. Reinhard did not think the motion precluded such an action. Ms. Bettman disagreed with Mr. Reinhard's statement, saying that capacity enhancement or increased capacity were intended to be paid for through systems development charges and other funding sources. She said that part of the funding problem was that the City continued to be tied to increased capacity and modernization projects because that was what it had the money for, while its existing investment in the infrastructure deteriorated from a lack of maintenance. Ms. Childs said that the motion stated that if the City adopted and implemented a locally controlled source of revenue, it would first be directed to OM&P. She clarified that the motion was specific to a revenue yet to-be-adopted, not all potential funding sources. Mr. Reinhard concurred. Mr. Kelly emphasized the importance of the amendment to his vote on TransPlan, saying the majority of the council had stressed the need for maintaining the existing system. Ms. Bettman asked if the adoption of a motor vehicle excise tax sufficient to ensure the system did not fall behind in terms of condition of repair would allow the tax to be raised to a higher level and the balance used for new construction. Ms. Childs believed the motion was specific to OM&P and it would require another motion or an amendment to include the funding for new capacity. Ms. Bettman said that was good. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly confirmed that the motion included the phrase "improved roadways." MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 6 Work Session