Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/28/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room-City Hall July 28, 2003 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary PapS, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon (by telephone). Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Torrey introduced guests from Eugene's Sister City of Irkutsk, Russia: Yuri Volkov, Vice Mayor and Alexander Tirskiiy, Chair of the Municipal Enterprise Board. He also introduced Eugene residents Yuri Pantioukhin and Galena Groza, who were acting as interpreter and coordinator respectively for the Sister City guests. Ms. Solomon was connected by telephone to the meeting. Ms. Nathanson gave notice of the Churchill Area Neighbors third annual potluck and picnic to be held July 29 at 6:30 p.m. at the Youth Sports Park behind Churchill High School. She also distributed the text of a proposed motion relating to the Transportation System Maintenance Fee (TSMF) and stated she was interested in addressing the issue within the next week or two. She said that the circumstances under which the TSMF was adopted had changed dramatically. She noted that the County had not responded to the City's overtures last year to jointly resolve the problem, and now the State's situation had changed and Springfield had recently decided not to implement a TSMF. She hoped implementation of the TSMF could be delayed in order to approach Springfield and Lane County about developing a joint solution. Mr. Kelly stated he had received an e-mail from John Brown of the Police Commission relating concern over a garbage can fire set in the West University Neighborhood area. He said that there were witnesses who could identify the person who set the fire, but according to Mr. Brown there was no code section under which the person could be cited. He asked staff to research the matter to determine if there was a gap in the code that should be addressed. Mr. Kelly noted the significant amount of news coverage about the new federal courthouse design and lack of an access ramp. He expressed his concern as well and asked if the City could encourage the General Services Administration to consider including an access ramp in the design. He said it was unfortunate that the same level of access was not provided in a signature building as that provided in City Hall. Mr. Poling commented that the new park on Oakmont Way was under construction and would be a wonderful addition to the community. He encouraged councilors to visit the area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Meisner said he attended the groundbreaking for Lane Transit District's (LTD) new transit station in Springfield and congratulated LTD on its progress. Ms. Taylor shared a number of constituent concerns: · Lack of Saturday evening hours at Amazon Pool · Development of Melton Park was delayed from April until the fall · Garbage cans in the street create obstacles for wheelchairs · Smoking decks outside commercial establishments cause problems for adjacent homeowners, both from noise and drifting smoke Ms. Taylor suggested that a delegate from the City could meet regularly with a delegate from the County to discuss mutual problems and facilitate better communications. She also said that process sessions should be open to the public and notices of times and locations published. Mr. Pap8 said he also had heard from Mr. Brown regarding the fire in the West University Neighborhood and joined Mr. Kelly in asking for a work session if a code amendment was needed to address the problem. Referring to Ms. Nathanson's comments on the TSMF, he agreed there should be a commitment from the County commissioners to work with the City and hoped to see the commitment in writing. Mr. Pap8 said he was pleased to see an article in The Register Guard regarding the use of "granny flats" as a way to encourage compact urban growth. He also agreed with Ms. Taylor's suggestion that representatives from the City and County meet regularly. Mayor Torrey said he was supportive of Ms. Nathanson's suggestion regarding the TSMF and felt it indicated the City was willing to work with the County toward a solution. Mr. Pap8 said he and John Brown were taking the City Manager on a boat ride down the river on August 4, 2003, and invited other councilors to join them. B. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting Criteria For Determining the Goal 5 Inventory Within the Eugene Urban Growth Area; Updating the Inventory; and Providing an Effective Date; and an Ordinance Adopting Criteria For Determining the Goal 5 Inventory Within The Eugene City Limits; Updating the Inventory; and Providing an Effective Date City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Senior Planner Neil Bj6rklund and asked him to give a brief overview of the materials in the agenda packet. Mr. Bj6rklund noted that Exhibit C was omitted from the original material and subsequently forwarded to councilors. He referred to an e-mail from Mr. Kelly asking if Section 3 of both ordinances would preclude future amendments to the Goal 5 inventory. He said that he had conferred with the City Attorney and determined that adoption of the ordinances would not prevent future amendments. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Bj6rklund referred to an acreage figure of 1,182 at the top of page 22 of the agenda and said the figure should actually be 1,167. He said the table on page 29 of the agenda should be corrected to show an "N" instead of a "Y" in the "Correction warranted?" column for the Tom Russell property on the first line. He went on the say that changed the total number of properties where corrections were warranted from 26 to 25. He said that since the inventory was last before the council, staff had made corrections based on site visits and a review of the record and determined that 15.2 acres did not meet any of the Tier 1 criteria. Ms. Nathanson referred to agenda page 21 and noted that 30 percent of the upland sites recommended by the Planning Commission were currently in City-owned parkland. She asked if any of the other sites were on a list to purchase if there was a willing seller. Mr. Bj6rklund said he understood there were additional areas being considered, but he did not know the official status. Mr. Pap~ asked for clarification of the significance criteria on agenda page 15. Mr. Bj6rklund replied that a site would have to meet one of the Tier 1 criteria and both of the Tier 2 criteria in order to be considered significant in the areas where the standard process was applied. Ms. Bettman commented that the Tier 1 and Tier 2 significance criteria were applicable to the Standard Process. She asked if the Tier 2 criteria were applicable to those sites for which the Safe Harbor method was now used. Mr. Bj6rklund said that for the areas in which Safe Harbor applied, the Safe Harbor criteria in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) were used, and it was not necessary to adopt them locally. Ms. Bettman asked if it was possible to select from among the OAR Safe Harbor criteria those the City wanted to use. Mr. Bj6rklund responded that choosing the Safe Harbor process required using the criteria exactly as they appeared in OAR, without modification. Ms. Meisner expressed appreciation for the maps and the table of site-specific testimony with staff response. He asked if it was possible to modify the inventory, once adopted, by removing a site if it was subsequently determined there was a basis to do so. Mr. Bj6rklund said it was within the council's purview to amend the inventory through an ordinance that amended the Metro Plan and that it could not be done through staff action alone. Mr. Pap~ suggested to the City Manager that the impact on the inventory ofbuildable land of adopting the Goal 5 inventory, and similar actions within the urban growth boundary (UGB), should be closely monitored. Mayor Torrey, referring to the table on agenda page 29, noted that the remark "Insufficient info to warrant change" appeared in the Comments column for several properties. He asked if that meant a change could be made if additional information was provided, or if it meant that a decision had been made that no change would be made. Mr. Bj6rklund replied that a change would be made only if new information was received into the record. He said that staff could not administratively MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 3 Work Session change the inventory once it was adopted, but new information could be included in the next round of action on the inventory after it was adopted. Mayor Torrey asked if property owners were assisted in understanding the inventory process, the impact on their property, and what information they could provide to request corrections. Mr. Bj6rklund said that a substantial amount of assistance was provided to individual owners, although not every owner's request for a change was accepted if the information did not warrant a change. He said when the record was opened again during the next phase of the process, a request could be addressed again if additional information was received. Mayor Torrey asked if there was compensation for owners who were unable to use a portion of their property because of adoption of the inventory. Mr. Bj6rklund said there was no regulation attached to adoption of the inventory, so there was nothing in that part of the process to prevent people from using their land. Mayor Torrey asked how a property could be removed from the inventory, once it was adopted. Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's Office explained that the next step of the process would be further analysis of each of the sites by staff to determine the level of protection that was warranted. During that process, a property owner would have an opportunity to provide information that might lead staff and the council to decide that no protection was warranted because of conditions that existed on the site. She said that would be part of a Metro Plan amendment. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Bj6rklund said that property owners who were parties of record would be notified of the council's decision on the inventory. Ms. Taylor asked what effect the council's adoption of the inventory would have on a property owner who did not believe his or her property should be listed. Mr. Bj6rklund said the owner would know that the property was included in the next stage of the process and would be further analyzed in order for a recommendation to be made on whether protection was warranted and at what level. Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to adopt Council Bill 4839, an ordinance concerning Goal 5 inventory within the UGB. Mayor Torrey opened the floor for those who wished to speak to the motion. Mr. Meisner stated he would support the motion and thanked staff for the care with which the recommendation was prepared. He said that pertinent to his support of the motion or any other approval of the inventory was that the next step of the process looked at not only what level of protection was warranted, but what was the most effective form of protection, including cost- effective factors. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for its work on the inventory process. He expressed regret that it had taken eleven years to reach that point and noted that the staff recommendation before the council was not the same as the Planning Commission's recommendation, which had been decided against by a majority of the council. He stated his preference for the Planning Commission's MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 4 Work Session recommendation and disappointment in the ordinance before the council. He said the perception that placing a site on the inventory immediately removed it from buildable lands was not accurate, as Mr. Bj6rklund had explained earlier; it merely moved the site to the next step for analysis. Mr. Kelly commented that a vote for the ordinance eliminated all of the upland sites, except stream corridors, from any further analysis and short-circuited the possibility of developing a mix of regulations and incentives to allow those lands to be developed more sensitively, compactly, and in harmony with the natural environment. He said the difference between the ordinance and the Planning Commission's recommendation resulted in a reduction of the number of acres studied from 3,500 acres to 1,100 acres. He said of the 1,100 acres to be further analyzed, 40 percent was the Willamette River. Ms. Bettman remarked that the staff recommendation to exclude the upland sites from further study was a practical move in the face of the political reality that a majority of the council was unwilling to protect those sites, even with further study. She questioned whether the public had an opportunity to adequately address the ordinance through the public process, as it was substantially different, in terms of the inventory and process, from the ordinance considered at the public hearings. She stated her objection for the record. Ms. Bettman said she doubted whether the uplands would be protected in any other way and referred to the council's recent review of the Stormwater Program and the movement to eliminate funding for stormwater corridor acquisition. She also noted provisions in the Land Use Code that protected natural resources that had been rolled back. She said that the development industry was advocating for expansion of the UGB because of lack of developable land at the same time that protections within the UGB were being eliminated and she feared the result would be sprawling development beyond the UGB and a devalued natural environment within the UGB. She thanked staff for its work and reiterated she would not support the motion. Ms. Taylor said she would vote against the motion, not because she did not want to adopt a Goal 5 inventory, but because the ordinance before the council was not the right approach. She asked if the council could take action if there had not been a public hearing on the specific ordinance before it. Ms. Jerome said that it was legal and the changes presented by staff were a result of testimony received during the public hearing. She said Goal 1, dealing with process, did not require the council to adopt what it was originally presented with, but staff would notify the State of changes made during the process. Ms. Taylor said she did not think the changes came from the public process and stated her preference for the Planning Commission's recommendation, which came from the input of hundreds of citizens. Mr. Pap~ remarked that it had taken eleven years to reach the point at which the council was, and his opinion about the ordinance changed drastically based upon testimony, e-mail, and other information contained in the record as part of the process. He felt the process had been MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 5 Work Session democratic and it was unfair to keep citizens in suspense any longer. He commended staff for its work on the ordinance. Mayor Torrey said he hoped a press release would be issued indicating exactly what action the council had taken so property owners could understand the impact on their property. Mayor Torrey called for the vote on the motion. The motion carried, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to adopt Council Bill 4840, an ordinance concerning the Goal 5 inventory within the Eugene city limits. The motion carried, 5:3, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. C. WORK SESSION: Road Fund Operations Mr. Taylor introduced Kurt Corey, Director of Public Works, and asked him to present the staff report and recommendation. Mr. Corey discussed the three aspects of transportation funding: adding capacity to the system through building new streets and bike paths; capital preservation; and general operation and maintenance. He referred to a flowchart on agenda page 69 that identified the estimated expenditures in each category for the fiscal year (FY) 2004 budget. He said funding for new streets and enhanced capacity was a combination of resources that included the Road Capital Fund, to the extent there were federal earmarked funds for capital construction, transportation systems development charges (SDC), special assessment projects such as local improvement districts (LID), and work through the private development that comprised most of the capacity expansion projects. Mr. Corey identified the reimbursement component of SDCs, the component of the Road Capital Fund derived from federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) dollars, and the Transportation Utility Fund as funding sources for capital preservation. He said that FY04 expenditures were estimated at $9.1 million, but there was a backlog of approximately $90 million in deferred maintenance. He noted that during recent budget discussions, there was overwhelming disapproval for using any of the funding for capital preservation to help offset road fund operations costs. Mr. Corey stated the State Highway Trust Fund was the primary source of funding for operations and maintenance (Fund 131), with some additional funds coming from the County-City Road Partnership Agreement, miscellaneous permit and license fees, and new State funds. He said the State Highway Trust Fund was comprised largely of State gas tax revenues and there had been no increase in the gas tax rate since 1993 and revenues have been trending downward since FY00. He said the partnership payments from Lane County also decreased significantly since FY96. During MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 6 Work Session that same time, according to Mr. Corey, the system has added significant capacity, including 45 miles of improved streets, 150 miles of sidewalks, 30 miles of bike paths, and 2,200 street lights, as well as requests for increased service in areas such as the West University Neighborhood. Mr. Corey said that reserves for Fund 131 would be depleted by the end of the current fiscal year and if the current revenue picture did not change, there would be a shortfall of up to $2 million by FY05. He referred councilors to an audit report prepared by John Ostrowski, entitled City of Eugene Road Fund Operations and Maintenance Efficiency Review. He said the report was requested by the citizen members of the Budget Committee and Mr. Ostrowski had concluded that operations were generally efficient when compared to other cities. He stated that cost-saving measures had been implemented to conserve Fund 131 resources, such as eliminating the Transportation Division and rolling its operations into other divisions, leaving positions vacant that are funded by the road fund, and other cost-cutting measures. He said that House Bill 2041 could potentially offset as much as $900,000 annually, but that left a shortfall in excess of $1 million. Mr. Corey summarized the revenue options and identified several that warranted further consideration, including street light maintenance districts, franchise fees and license agreements, and additional surface transportation program funds as a result of Transportation Management Area (TMA) designation. He said there were two policy issues before the council: · Should road fund operation and maintenance activities be sustained at the current level? · If so, should new or alternative revenues be pursued to sustain the existing level of service? Mr. Corey concluded with a comment from the Citizen Budget Committee report: "In the face of projected operation and maintenance funding shortfalls and service reductions beginning in FY03, ensuring adequate funding for the operation and maintenance activities of the City's transportation system is absolutely essential." He said the staff recommendation was to direct the City Manager to prepare the FY05 budget based upon the current level of service and ask that a combination of alternative revenue sources be developed by staff for consideration at a subsequent work session. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for the clear presentation in the flowchart of revenue sources and said it would be a good tool to educate the public on how road operations and maintenance were funded, noting that no property taxes were involved. He said the audit report showed the City was conducting operations and maintenance in an efficient way. He supported the idea that the City should operate the street system at the current level and find revenue to do that; however, he did not agree with finding piecemeal revenue sources to bridge the gap. He stated there was a need for overall tax reform and the council needed to reconsider some of the broad-based revenue sources suggested previously by staff. He said he did not like the idea of special fees, such as a street light fee, and felt that those were fundamental services of government and fundamental taxes should support them. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Kelly's statements. She asked how the $900,000 in new funds from the State under House Bill 2041 would be spent. Mr. Corey responded that under the proposal before the council, the funds would be added to the State Highway Trust Fund revenue and spent on the activities listed under road fund operations on the flowchart. Ms. Bettman observed that the cost of street lighting for FY01 was shown as $559,688 and in FY03 it was up to $787,000. She asked why there was such a large increase in cost. Mr. Corey said a primary factor was the increase in costs for electricity for street lights and signals. Referring to the two policy issues stated earlier by Mr. Corey, Ms. Bettman said there should be a third issue: reprioritize spending of the road and other eligible funds to support the current service level before adding any new infrastructure. She observed the flowchart showed $2.1 million in special federal, State, and County grants that would be used for new streets and enhanced capacity and said that was because the City did not charge enough SDCs to cover the cost of new growth. She felt that funds being spent on new infrastructure should be spent on capital preservation and operations and maintenance and new fees should be charged for new projects. She said she was unwilling to consider new fees and existing funds should be better prioritized. Ms. Nathanson asked for clarification of how charges would be passed on to the end user under franchise fees and license agreements. Mr. Corey replied the broad concept was to look at existing franchise fees and agreements to determine if any adjustments were in order and collections would be done in the same manner. He used the example of a utility company paying four percent and there was capacity to increase the rate to five percent, the increase would be passed along to the company. Ms. Nathanson asked how the community's designation as a transportation management area (TMA) would result in additional revenue. Mr. Corey said the designation brought additional STP funding and existing operations should be reviewed to identify which activities would be eligible for the use of STP funds. He said that determination was underway and ultimately the decision would be made by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). Referring to the suggestion to create street light districts, Ms. Nathanson asked if the City had talked with Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) or the American Public Power Association (APPA) about efficiencies or economies that could be realized in the operation of street lights. She noted that while the cost of street lighting continued to increase, Eugene actually had fewer street lights than many other cities. Mr. Corey responded that staff had consulted with EWEB on the energy-saving options available to address the cost of street lighting. He said the concept of street light districts offered a means to get lighting into a neighborhood and support the ongoing costs. Hypothetically, he said that if the operating fund shortfall was not resolved and one of the services eliminated was street lighting, districts could be a way to restore that service. Ms. Nathanson questioned the efficiency of a street lighting district where the City would need to maintain an inventory and adjust billings when lights were added or removed. She commented that MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 8 Work Session administering such a system seemed burdensome. Mr. Corey remarked that in another jurisdiction where street light districts were used, it had not proved to be burdensome once the system was established. Ms. Nathanson remarked that she understood the logic of including street lights in the road fund because they were related to street safety, but lights were already tied to residents' feelings of safety for themselves and their property and that factor should be considered. Mr. Corey added that street lighting on the arterial, collector, off-street bike path system, and similar areas was a community benefit. Mr. Meisner observed that there were many problems with no solution, or easy combination of solutions. He said that each of the proposed solutions impacted other areas and could potentially exacerbate another problem. As an example, he said the council might consider repealing the TSMF in exchange for increased or different shared funds from the County, yet the County-City Road Partnership Agreement revenues, used for road fund operations, had steadily declined and the TSMF was intended for capital preservation. He expressed a willingness for staff to proceed with researching other revenue sources, but was not optimistic that there was a way to successfully accomplish tax reform that would address those problems. Mr. Meisner commented that although public safety and transportation were given highest priority for public funding, during the budget cycle they were held close to harmless and not increased to cover actual needs, but instead other things were funded that might not rise to the same level of priority. He reviewed the dedicated revenue options for elements of the transportation needs listed in the staff report and noted that while congestion pricing was highly effective, there was no political will to implement it. He was interested in revenue sources that acknowledged use and damage to the system, but none of them could solve the magnitude of the existing budget problem. Mr. Pap~ asked how the new federal courthouse street would be funded. Mr. Corey replied that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contemplated 80 percent of the funds as federal earmark that fell into the category of special federal, State, and County grants and the remaining 20 percent was contemplated as coming from Lane County, which had committed to the 20 percent match on the first phase of the improvements. He said further negotiations would be held with the County on subsequent stages. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City was certain of the cost. Mr. Corey replied that the estimate was as certain as possible at the current stage of project planning. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern that costs could be much higher than estimated. Mr. Pap~ asked if the recommendations contained in the audit report by Mr. Ostrowski had been implemented, including locating the Public Works Department in one facility. Mr. Corey said that most of the recommendations had been implemented, but locating in a single facility was a logistical problem because of the need to find a location that could accommodate functions that were currently spread across three downtown locations. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City's facility plan included bringing Public Works into a single facility. Mr. Taylor replied that it was a goal as space became available. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Pap~ said he agreed with Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Kelly's remarks about street lighting and felt it was a safety issue beyond transportation. He asked about the status of the Sidewalk Program. Mr. Corey replied the program's assessment practices required a substantial contribution from the City as projects, primarily for intersection work, moved forward. He said those projects would generally be funded from Fund 131 and as the balance has gone down and reserves used, the majority of the Sidewalk Program had been placed in abeyance. He said most work during the last three construction seasons leveraged Community Development Block Grant moneys, State grants, and other sources to provide handicap access work, bike path, and pedestrian crossing improvements, but currently there was no proactive sidewalk installation program. Mr. Pap~ remarked that there were a number of older developments in the community that did not have sidewalks and it represented a safety hazard. Mr. Pap~ asked the City Manager to research how the County Road Fund has been allocated and determine, over the past year, how much was available and how it was distributed. Mr. Taylor replied that the information would be included as part of a larger report being prepared in response to the new funds coming from the State and other transportation funding issues. Mr. Corey said the citizen members of the Budget Committee discussed the Sidewalk Program, but their focus was on the backlog of maintenance projects, and other options were not addressed. He said a "Eugene livability fee" was discussed that was similar to a transportation utility fee with the express purpose of paying for amenities like street trees, bike paths, lighting, sidewalks, nodal development, median work and similar activities. He said he did not disagree that sidewalks were important, but there was simply not enough in the Road Fund, given the priorities, to sustain an ongoing sidewalk program. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Kelly on the need for tax reform. She said the council should reconsider earlier suggestions from staff and the City Club on broad-based taxes, rather than looking at a number of small fees to pay for different services. She said that government needed to find a fair way to fund services that people should expect to receive. She also agreed with Ms. Bettman's comments on the need to take care of maintenance before adding capacity to the system. Mayor Torrey expressed his appreciation for the staff work, but said staff needed to find alternatives to new revenue. He said the community needed to determine what it wanted, how much it would cost, and how it would be funded. He did not think the public would accept new fees as a way to pay for the system and it was necessary to educate people about what would be lost if tax reform was not accomplished. He said the County Road Fund was already budgeted by the County, without an opportunity for the City to participate. He said he supported Ms. Nathanson's suggestion that the County Board of Commissioners be involved in resolving the City's transportation funding problems. Mr. Kelly asked how much in additional funding would be realized with the TMA designation. Mr. Corey said the current allocation could be doubled. He said the formula for distribution by the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 10 Work Session County was based on needs, priorities, and area-wide projects, and not apportioned by jurisdiction. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mayor Torrey's suggestion that voters needed to be told what would be lost if revenue to sustain the system wasn't available. He commented that too often, last-minute solutions were found and voters might not take seriously the potential loss of services. Mr. Taylor commented that the council would discuss stormwater program budget problems on August 11, 2003, along with a continued discussion of transportation funds. He said if the council decided to live with the current revenue streams, it would mean a substantial reduction in services and a reprioritizing of expenditures and Mr. Corey had presented some possible alternatives. Ms. Nathanson remarked that while the anticipated increase in funds of $900,000 was insufficient to address the budget shortfall, it could be perceived by some as a doubling of funding. She said the Sidewalk Program contained criteria to determine where sidewalks were needed and considered such factors as proximity to a school or bus stop. Regarding Mr. Papa's request for information on the distribution of road funds, she stated an interest in reviewing the distribution of those funds between Eugene and Springfield over the past ten years. She also wondered whether road condition was a factor in the distribution. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mayor Torrey on the need for a different approach to maintaining the existing infrastructure. She saw the current system as enabling the expenditure of money on new capacity because funds came from the County earmarked for specific projects. She said that twice since January a proposal had come before the council with a funding package for a new road and the multi-jurisdictional arrangement that allowed Lane County to collect assessments for the City portion and resulted in the County Road Fund being used for increased capacity, rather than SDCs. She said the council should state that County Road Funds could only be used for capital preservation. She said the issue of TMA funds had been raised at MPC meetings and she had advocated using the money for capital preservation. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct staff to prepare a proposal to use any TMA funds for capital preservation. Ms. Bettman accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Kelly to include operations and maintenance as a use for any TMA funds. Ms. Bettman explained that her intent was to enable staff to propose to MPC, based on City Council direction, a request for funds for capital preservation, maintenance, and operations, rather than for a particular project. Mayor Torrey clarified that the intent of the motion was not to make a decision regarding the disposition of TMA funds, but rather to ask the City Manager to prepare a proposal for City MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 11 Work Session Council consideration. Ms. Bettman agreed that the purpose was to provide direction to staff to propose uses for TMA funds that were capital preservation, operations, and maintenance activities. Mr. Meisner said his concern about restricting the use of TMA funds to the narrow category of capital preservation was addressed by Mr. Kelly's amendment. He said without advance notice of the motion and a staff analysis, he did not have enough information about the consequences or implications. He asked if staff had any idea about the impact of the motion. Mr. Corey replied he did not know the consequences and recommended the motion be held in abeyance because there was a process in place under which the allocation of funds came to the MPC. He said the staff was in tune with the issues represented in the budget flowchart and the motion could have unintended consequences by restricting flexibility. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Corey said the TMA funds were all federal dollars that were allocated through the MPC. Mr. Taylor explained that the staff report was intended to ask for recommendations from the council about assumptions that needed to be built into a budget for the transportation system funds for FY05. He said the motion was a worthy idea and a component of the larger discussion, but the effects of the motion, if adopted, were unclear without further review. Mr. Pap~ said he agreed with the intent of the motion, but was concerned with the lack of background information and impact analysis and could not support the motion. Ms. Nathanson asked if the motion to restrict use of TMA funds would have a negative impact on other federal funding such as the enhanced capacity special grants. Mr. Corey replied that it should not have an impact as those funding decisions were not connected. Mayor Torrey said that he could not support the motion in the case of a tie. He needed more information on the impact of the motion if the proposal went to MPC and on the limitations on the use of TMA funds. He said it was a legitimate subject for discussion at the MPC, with staff analysis, but the motion had come before the council too quickly. Mr. Kelly said he was inclined to support the motion based on comments from other councilors and staff. He said the council needed to decide whether to give priority to operations, preservation, and maintenance and, if it did, the ability of staff to be creative was not restricted, except in the use of funds for new capital projects. He expressed concern that allocations were reviewed at the MPC level, but not by the council, and without the direction of the motion, the discussion would not come back to the council. He said if unintended consequences occurred, the motion could always be overturned by subsequent City Council action and urged that strong direction be given to staff. Ms. Bettman said that either operating, maintaining, and preserving the existing transportation system was the council's highest priority, or it was not. She said the TMA funds were an additional source of funding that could be dedicated to that and take care of a part of the problem, MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 12 Work Session or they could continue to be spent on new projects. She said the motion would give direction to staff when requesting an allocation, and provide herself and the Mayor an opportunity to advocate to the MPC for that priority for the City. Ms. Taylor said the direction to staff before going to MPC was a good idea. She said the need for additional funding for operation, preservation, and maintenance activities was obvious and providing direction to the City's representatives on the MPC was appropriate. She suggested that MPC activities should be a standing item on the council's agenda. She supported the motion. Mr. Poling asked when the additional TMA funds would become available and how soon the council's proposal could be presented to the MPC. Mr. Corey said he thought additional funds were projected in the current fiscal year, but was not certain of the exact timing. Mayor Torrey said it could be addressed at the next MPC meeting. Mr. Poling asked if staff was given the direction to sustain road fund operations at current levels and bring alternative funding source proposal back to the council, the subject of the motion would be included anyway. Mr. Corey said the TMA funds would be considered as part of the budget problem-solving process as it was an existing revenue source and use for operation, maintenance, and preservation would be recommended as a matter of course. He said his request for direction on new or alternative revenue sources was focused on things such as street light maintenance districts or some other revenue source not currently available. Mr. Poling suggested that rather than passing the motion, the council could give direction to include use of the additional funds and request that the budget come back the council before the additional money became available. Mr. Pap~ stated his concern that the MPC process circumvented the council's budget process. Mayor Torrey clarified that the funds did not belong to the City and the MPC allocated TMA dollars on behalf of participating jurisdictions. Ms. Nathanson said some of the worst road conditions existed on streets received from the county that needed to be upgraded to urban standards. She asked the council to think creatively about the formula both for the TMA funds and transportation funding generally during discussions with the county. Mayor Torrey said he did not see the urgency of passing the motion immediately and felt the issue could be considered at a later date when more information was available. Mr. Kelly reiterated that the purpose of the motion was to direct staff and MPC representatives to advocate at the MPC that the City's share of the TMA funds be used for operation, maintenance, and preservation. He did not think there were that many unanswered questions about the impact, and the action could always be reversed if it was necessary to change course. He asked Mr. Corey to explain how the motion would restrict staff creativity, when Mr. Corey had stated the use for operation, maintenance, and preservation would be recommended as a matter of course. Mr. Corey replied that his comment on creativity meant he was not certain of the benefit of MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 13 Work Session presupposing a use for funds to the exclusion of other eligible activities and that staff prepared a budget each year that came before the council. Ms. Bettman said the MPC process was not transparent and could be confusing. She explained that normally a committee of staff decided what projects to move forward and the list could include projects from the Capital Improvement Plan or completely new projects if they felt there was support. She stated that typically the council did not get to see the project list from which projects were selected. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to table the motion until August 11, 2003 and have a statement of direction brought before the council at that time. Ms. Bettman asked for clarification on the statement of direction mentioned in the motion. Mr. Pap6 replied that he wanted to see the language of the statement he understood Ms. Bettman wanted herself and Mayor Torrey to present to the MPC. Ms. Bettman said her intent was to ask staff to go through the list of all projects and needs and prepare a line item for anticipated revenue, just as they would if they were using new projects, but instead the projects would be amalgamations of operation, maintenance, and preservation projects. She felt there was a better chance of obtaining funding for those types of projects. Mayor Torrey said he could support the motion to table to a time certain in order to obtain background information. Mayor Torrey called for the vote on the motion to table. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Pap6, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting in favor. Mayor Torrey called for the vote on the main motion. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Pap6, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mr. Corey clarified that the direction was to prepare a FY05 budget based on the basis of existing levels of service, focus on State Transportation Program funds as a resource to help underwrite that, and not include other alternative, nonexisting revenue sources. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 14 Work Session MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 15 Work Session