Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Childs asked if there was any additional discussion for either the bicycle or pedestrian <br />category. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor raised concern over the lack of required bicycle parking. Ms. Childs indicated that she <br />would get back to him with information. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs moved the discussion on to Finance. She noted that there was a memo outlining <br />comments made, by policy, with suggestions for either no change to the policy or listed options. <br /> <br />Paul Thompson of Lane Council of Governments noted that the memo went through the five <br />existing policies in TransPlan's finance topic area. He said that Finance Policy 1 stated that <br />TransPlan will support the development of a stable and flexible transportation finance system that <br />provided adequate resources for transportation needs identified in TransPlan. <br /> <br />Mr. Thompson said that there was a fair amount of public testimony on the item. He noted that <br />much of the testimony was calling for clearly defined and dedicated funding streams for bicycle <br />and pedestrian and other alternative modes. He said there was also a large body of testimony <br />that called for a dedicated separate stream of support for operations, maintenance and <br />preservation. He noted that some testimony called for full funding of operations, maintenance <br />and preservation before funding of new road facilities or system improvements. <br /> <br />Mr. Thompson said that a third major area of testimony on Policy 1 stated that there should be a <br />call for establishment of new locally controlled revenue sources or regional taxes for the <br />transportation system. He noted that there was a list of suggestions in the council packet. <br /> <br />Mr. Thompson said that there were two possible options. The first was no change to the policy <br />as it stood. The second was to add a clause to Finance Policy 1 that referenced the need for <br />funding related to nodal development and TDM programs specifically. He said that staff <br />recommended Option 1 at the current time. He said that the policy was consistent with full <br />funding of operations, maintenance and preservation, but noted that it was a revenue source <br />matter to accomplish that. He also noted that the policy was supportive of fully funding <br />alternative modes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to accept Finance Policy Number <br /> 1. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported Option 1 because it was less restrictive. Mr. Kelly agreed. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to accept Finance Policy 2. The <br /> motion passed unanimously, 6:0 <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to accept Finance Policy 3 with <br /> Option 2. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner commented that the motion was consistent with the discussion about taking part in <br />the prioritization process. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 13 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />