Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to modify the scope of work to <br /> include a phased approach as suggested by the Planning Commission and <br /> direct the staff to proceed. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />D.Work Session: TransPlan <br /> <br />The council was joined by Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, Ms. Childs, Transportation <br />Engineer David Reinhard, TransPlan Project Manager Tom Schwetz of Lane Council of <br />Governments, and Paul Thompson of Lane Council of Governments for the discussion. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs referred the council to page 61 of the June 19 meeting packet, which contained the <br />staff clarification of the Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) recommendation. She noted that Mr. <br />Rayor had asked staff to prepare a motion regarding bicycle financing and to determine whether <br />through new or existing policy it could be made clear that bicycle parking would be provided for <br />both new and existing development. <br /> <br />Regarding the TUF, Ms. Childs said that the council was not looking at a policy, but rather a way <br />to address anticipated financing shortfalls through a new revenue source. Members of the <br />council had been concerned that the draft document indicated the council had approved the <br />concept, and staff was recommending that the sentence to that effect be struck. She said that <br />staff further recommended that the reference to a TUF be deleted and reference made instead to <br />a locally controlled source of revenue. Those recommended amendments were reflected in <br />legislative format in the meeting packet. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, that the TransPlan draft be <br /> changed to reflect the changes on pages 61 and 62 of the June 19 meeting <br /> packet, and that similar changes to made to pages 111-68, 69, 64, and 72. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly endorsed the changes and anticipated more discussion on what the revenue source <br />would be, and if it satisfied the issue of financial constraint. <br /> <br />Mr. Thompson noted that the Springfield City Council had modified the document slightly, and <br />called the council's attention to the change, reflected on page 62. The council had <br />recommended that the language be changed to "equitably tied to all users" rather than "the" <br />users. The Springfield council was also interested in charging those not currently paying the <br />costs of the system, such as Lane Transit District. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart left the meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he continued to be frustrated with the text as it did not reflect any flexibility or <br />openness to finding an approach that ties cost to use. He said that a household or zone basis <br />was not acceptable to him. He believed there were ways to tie cost to mileage or efficiency, and <br />warned staff that if it "resists doing that" he would oppose the financing element in the future. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs referred the council to a copy of an e-mail memorandum from herself to Mr. Rayor <br />responding to several questions Mr. Rayor raised regarding bicycle policies, copies of which had <br />been distributed to councilors. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 13 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />