CC Minutes - 04/28/98 JEO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly suggested that consideration of the requested levy proposal would likely be possible by elected officials in June. The motion was adopted unanimously, 26:0, with Mr. Bennett and Ms. Hocken not participating. In response to a question from Mr. Burge, Lane County Assessor Jim Gangle explained that published figures reporting the assessed value of an average house included only calculations related to single family units. Mr. Morrisette declared a five-minute recess in the meeting. IV. TRANSPLAN FINANCE STRATEGY Mr. Carlson referred to his memorandum dated April 28, 1998, regarding proposed TransPlan finance solutions distributed at the beginning of the meeting. He described the role of elected officials in approval of strategies to address the shortfall of revenues to meet transportation needs projected in the plan. He reviewed descriptions of the strategies proposed for consideration included in the memorandum. Mr. Sorenson asked what was the projected change in the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in Lane County. Mr. Carlson said TransPlan projected that the VMT would continue to rise over the next decade, largely because most residential development would likely occur on vacant land at the edges of urban growth boundaries and result in longer trip lengths. Lane Transit District Board of Directors President Pat Hocken explained that transit program funding was provided independently from that used for street and highway projects identified in TransPlan. She said it seemed likely funding would continue to be available for its programs, including its long-range bus rapid transit system. She said the district experienced revenue shortfalls in being able to provide regular bus service in the increasing number of areas requesting it. Mr. Carlson said elected officials would need to make decisions regarding policies and revenue strategies for street and highway modernization projects. He said TransPlan projected increased vehicular traffic congestion and that decisions would need to be made about how much was acceptable. In response to a question from Mr. Tollenaar, Mr. Carlson explained that local gas tax or vehicle registration fees were not considered in revenue strategies because elected officials had previously appeared to reject such potential revenue sources. In response to questions from Mr. Green regarding the shortfall of revenue to meet proposed expansion of the bicycle trail system, Mr. Carlson explained that a Transportation Utility Fee could be used to deal with such a shortfall and that no bicycle-related local revenue source was being considered because Federal funding of streets and highways often included provision for creation of bicycle systems. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Carlson explained that approval of TransPlan did not eliminate the need for later approval of funding for individual projects such as the West Eugene Parkway. MINUTES--Metropolitan Joint Elected Officials April 28, 1998 Page 8