Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Farr raised concern over the word "major" in the policy. He wanted to know who decided a <br />project was major. Mr. Arnis responded that major projects generally involved modernization <br />projects such as lane widening or anything with a high cost. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart raised concern that the wording allowed the possibility for the City to choose to adopt a <br />different definition of "major." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the policy addressed ©D©T and federal revenue. He added that most typical <br />streets would not get that funding. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs pointed out that the word "major" was used in the policy language. She commented <br />that to remain consistent with policy, which spoke to addressing safety and major capacity <br />problems, it would be prudent to add the word, as suggested, under the definition and intent <br />statement. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to accept Finance Policy 4. The <br /> motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to accept Finance Policy 5. The <br /> motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs moved the discussion on to new finance policies. She noted that there were three <br />suggestions that were found on packet page 60. <br />Mr. Kelly commented that there was a lot of State and federal funding that was roadway- <br />dedicated and called for a finance policy that local jurisdictions would seek changes in current <br />restrictions on state and federal transportation funding. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to add a new policy that would <br /> state "Local jurisdictions will seek changes in current restrictions in State and <br /> federal transportation funding." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commented that he was trying to broaden new Finance Policy 1 in that local <br />jurisdictions wished the State and federal jurisdictions were more flexible in how local <br />governments used the money they were allocated. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He said that new Policy 1 did not go far enough and added <br />that the gas tax was not the only source of funds with the kinds of restrictions that kept local <br />jurisdictions from using the funds most effectively. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart supported the motion because he believed in giving as much authority to local <br />jurisdictions as possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ offered a friendly amendment, that was accepted, to add the County to the jurisdictions <br />in the motion. <br /> <br /> The amended motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 14 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />