Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/04/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 4, 2001 7:15 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: TransPlan Planning Director Jan Childs introduced the item, referring the council to a motion authored by Mr. Kelly, distributed prior to the meeting, regarding three elements of the letter sent to the Joint Elected Officials by Commissioner Peter Sorenson. Those elements included: 1) nodal development funding; 2) effective Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); and 3) adequate operations, maintenance, and preservation (OM&P) funding. In addition, staff was seeking council review and ratification of the recommendations reached by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) about the outstanding TransPlan issues. She referred the council to Attachment 3 in the meeting packet, which listed those recommendations. Ms. Childs also referred the council to a motion from Mr. Rayor to amend one of the MPC recommendations regarding bicycle projects. Mr. Kelly explained that his motion was intended to address what he considered fundamental problems in TransPlan. His motion was intended to state to the MPC that the Eugene City Council felt that these three issues were the "big three" that needed to be resolved to make TransPlan work. He briefly reviewed the three elements of the motion. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that the council forward the following proposal to MPC as its recommendation for TransPlan amendments related to Lane County Commissioner Peter Sorenson's letter: (1) Nodal Development Funding: The council supports and applauds the March Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) action that added $5 million for planning activities for nodal development over the 20-year plan life. However, the plan has no identified funding for costs of capital work related to nodal implementation. Without such funding, nodal implementation--critical to TransPlan's success--is unlikely to happen. The council proposes that funding be included in TransPlan for implementation of infrastructure that would not be built in typical development. Such funds would be used in both greenfield and MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 1 Work Session redevelopment nodes for such features as street modifications, for pedestrian amenities, transit centers and public open space. We propose that staff determine an appropriate level of funding and suggest funding sources to the adopting officials. Staff should also propose guidance language for TransPlan that outlines criteria for identifying eligible project and provides a list of the types of features (e.g., street modifications) that would be included in the funding line item. (2) Effective Bus Rapid Transit: Like nodal development, BRT has been identified as a component vital to TransPlan's success. However, the TransPlan language regarding BRT (see page 2-26 and Appendix A BRT map) is equivocal at best. The council proposes that staff draft strengthened policy language for BRT that would modify current language on page 2-26 and on the BRT map in Appendix A. Such language would include: · commitment by all jurisdictions to full system build-out over the 20 years (presuming continued federal funds availability). TransPlan would state that the "full system" will include at least xx miles of BRT corridor, though final corridor routing has yet to be fully determined. (xx is the total number of miles of corridor shown on the current draft's map.) · commitment that the great majority of BRT corridor service will feature exclusive busways (say, 80 percent) to provide adequate performance and to attract customers. · strengthen language in policy and map regarding features of the BRT system. (E.g., on page 2-26 "Positive characteristics include..." does not mean the system will actually have those characteristics, and on the map "may have dedicated travel lanes" and "may employ...signal priority" is very weak.) (3) Adequate OM&P Funding: The council proposes that the TransPlan include funding and mechanisms to ensure that our roadway and bike system at least falls no further behind in its condition of repair. This will require increased OM&P funding in at least some jurisdictions due to the currently deteriorating condition. The council proposes that all revenue sources included in the draft constrained financial plan should be examined by staff and adopting officials; within legal constraints, additional funds from these sources will be moved to OM&P (for both local and State facilities). If such additional revenues are insufficient to at least maintain current system conditions and to build capital projects deemed to be of high priority, the adopting officials will specifically identify a list of potential additional revenue sources and commit to adopting at least one of them at the local level. Such MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 2 Work Session new revenue sources will be used for roadway/bike improvements whose funding has been moved to OM&P, in accordance with the previous paragraph, and for the remaining OM&P shortfall. This proposal means, in part, that the following current draft TransPlan language must be made more specific: "Increase revenues through the development of a locally controlled source of revenue equitably tied to all users of the transportation system..." Note this proposal does not require each jurisdiction to adopt the same revenue source. It merely requires that, to the extent that a new revenue source is required, the adopting officials make it clear to the public that it will be adopted and that it will be one of a short list of revenue types. Mr. Pap8 said he preferred that the motion be trifurcated. Mr. PapS, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to separate the three issues. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly voting no, and the motion became three separate motions. The council considered the first motion: (1) Nodal Development Funding: The council supports and applauds the March Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) action that added $5 million for planning activities for nodal development over the 20-year plan life. However, the plan has no identified funding for costs of capital work related to nodal implementation. Without such funding, nodal implementation--critical to TransPlan's success-is unlikely to happen. The council proposes that funding be included in TransPlan for implementation of infrastructure that would not be built in typical development. Such funds would be used in both greenfield and redevelopment nodes for such features as street modifications, for pedestrian amenities, transit centers and public open space. We propose that staff determine an appropriate level of funding and suggest funding sources to the adopting officials. Staff should also propose guidance language for TransPlan that outlines criteria for identifying eligible project and provides a list of the types of features (e.g., street modifications) that would be included in the funding line item. Mr. Fart asked if the motion related to nodal development was funding above what had already been identified. Ms. Childs said yes. Mr. Fart asked if it was realistic to think other fund sources could be identified. Tom Schwetz, TransPlan Project Manager, Lane Council of Governments, did not know. Mr. Fart said that it appeared there may be no funding available. Ms. Childs clarified that the motion directed staff to determine the appropriate level of funding for nodal development and to suggest funding sources to the adopting officials. It essentially directed staff to do more work. She confirmed that staff would look at the potential of reprogramming existing dollars. Paul Thompson of Lane Council of Governments indicated additional funding sources would be difficult MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 3 Work Session to identify. He noted that the fiscal constraint scenario in TransPlan discussed the Road Fund dollars underwritten by federal timber receipts, which could result in more revenues to Lane County for use on roads beyond 2004. He said that it was likely reprogramming of existing funding would have to occur for nodal development to be funded at the level proposed. Mr. Farr confirmed that the funding would then compete with other projects. Mr. Meisner supported the first and second motion and had questions about the third. He said that a fundamental principle of TransPlan was the inseparability of land use and transportation planning. He had been troubled that the plan only funded projects and did not indicate how nodal development would be implemented. He emphasized the importance of nodal development and said if the plan was not explicit about the seriousness of the topic, he would not support the plan. Mr. Meisner supported the motion even if it meant other projects were not funded. Ms. Taylor supported the motion, pointing out that the council did not have to determine the source of funds at this time. Mr. Pap8 indicated appreciation for Mr. Farr's remarks. He said that just because TransPlan did not contain the funding did not mean the City would not be working to implement nodal development. Ms. Childs concurred, and noted the expenditures the City had made to date in support of nodal development. At this time, the level of planning for the other nodes was not specific in terms of projected costs. She reminded the council that TransPlan addressed regional-level projects rather than every single project in the Capital Improvement Program or every project the City might do to support its nodal development efforts. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Meisner as to the importance of integrating land use and transportation planning, and thought the strategies in TransPlan would take the community in areas it had never been before, whereas the last TransPlan had consisted predominantly of road projects. Nodal development was a fundamental strategy in the plan, and just as viable for transportation mobility as any of the road projects in the plan, and possibly more cost-effective than road projects. She supported the motion. City Manager Jim Johnson pointed out that motions 1 and 3 addressed transportation revenue questions, and reminded the council that the Budget Committee was preparing recommendations for transportation funding that it would consider later in April. Mayor Torrey noted that the council's recommendation would next go to the MPC for further resolution. He said he would excuse himself from the next MPC meeting, and asked Mr. Meisner to serve as his alternate to ensure the council majority had an opportunity to present its position to the MPC. He asked if the council was then prepared to "fall on its sword" if the MPC did not accept the recommendations, or if it was prepared to work with other MPC members on proposals acceptable to all adopting bodies. Mr. Kelly said his goal in preparing the motion was to make TransPlan internally consistent. If the community was to rely on nodal development, it needed to spend money on it. He acknowledged the comments of Mr. Pap8 regarding the fact other sources of funds were being used to support nodal development, and the comments of Mr. Farr regarding the lack of other revenues, but thought the plan must include a funding figure for nodal development based on what it would cost to make the projected number of nodes happen. Speaking to the mayor's comments, Mr. Kelly said that he had given up on many things in TransPlan that were really important to him, and MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 4 Work Session reiterated that three motions provided internal consistency in the document. He hoped the City could convince its partners to move to some extent on the issues under consideration. Mr. Farr said he would probably vote for the motion if he was present for the vote. However, he believed more discussion about the funding was needed with the City's interjurisdictional partners. While he agreed about the importance of nodal development to the success of the plan, Mr. Farr said the council needed to realize it was creating competition for funding for projects by passing the motion. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Ms. Childs said that the $5 million for planning added to TransPlan by the MPC was predicated on the City's experience with the Royal node, which was mostly underwritten by grant funds. The $5 million assumed continued receipt of a certain level of grant funding. Regarding the proposed funding, Ms. Bettman clarified that it would not limit the community to external funding sources, but would mean a line item for nodal implementation would be included in the constrained plan. Also speaking to the mayor's comments, Ms. Bettman said that the plan did not address many of the issues that had been of importance to her. She said that nodal development, adequate OM&P funding, and an effective BRT system were her "bottom line," because she thought those elements were what "hold the plan together." If the motion passed, she could support the plan in good conscience because it would fulfill the objectives of the plan and the community. Mr. Johnson said that one of the difficulties facing the council was that TransPlan combined policy with revenue, which was different from other policy documents the council adopted. In this case, the council was being asked to combine a financial plan with a policy plan, and he was not sure that the council could do it. He said that none of the agencies had the funding to do what the motion was proposing, particularly around OM&P. Mr. Kelly responded that if none of the agencies had the money to implement nodal development, "let's be intellectually honest" and take the nodes out of the plan and rerun the model. Mr. Johnson said he was not suggesting that; instead, he was suggesting that staff be given the direction to develop the financial alternatives to implement nodal development. Mr. Rayor thought the manager's point interesting. He thought the amount of funding for nodal development should be determined, and funding options developed. The community should take advantage of grants where it could. He anticipated any revenue specific to the transportation system, as a transportation utility fee (TUF), would go to OM&P. He suggested that staff could draft a policy that stipulated every grant received for transportation planning went first to nodal development. Ms. Childs determined from Mr. Kelly that his reference to funding in TransPlan to pay for implementation of infrastructure that would not be built in a typical development referred to the incremental difference between that infrastructure and the infrastructure required for nodal development. Ms. Childs estimated that cost at 10 percent to 15 percent above the cost of infrastructure for typical development. Mr. Farr left the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Schwetz asked what happened to TransPlan if there was no citizen support for a local revenue specific to implementation of nodal development. Mr. Kelly responded that the plan would be amended and nodal development backed out from the assumptions underlying the document. Mr. Meisner concurred. Mr. Meisner wanted to see the nodes develop. He said that "zoning means nothing unless we make these happen." He acknowledged the manager's concerns but said that the council was only telling staff to determine the appropriate level of funding and suggest some funding sources. Mr. Meisner did not think nodal development would be taken seriously without a price tag. Speaking to the mayor's remarks, he agreed with Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman: there were many detailed things that he would have liked to have changed in TransPlan and several were rejected by the council and others were rejected by the other jurisdictions. The issues reflected in the three motions were fundamental to him. He thought the council had capitulated on its issues several times, and wanted to see some positive cooperation from the City's partners in TransPlan. Ms. Bettman wondered at the discussion of funding at such a detailed level when other projects had been added to the plan without any such discussion. She said the City had built incentives for nodal development into many of its plans and policies, including TransPlan, but had no money for those incentives. If the City had money for infrastructure to serve nodal development and could leverage that money to make nodal development happen, it should do so. The motion passed, 7:0. The council considered the second motion. (2) Effective Bus Rapid Transit: Like nodal development, BRT has been identified as a component vital to TransPlan 'S success. However, the TransPlan language regarding BRT (see page 2-26 and Appendix A BRT map) is equivocal at best. The council proposes that staff draft strengthened policy language for BRT that would modify current language on page 2-26 and on the BRT map in Appendix A. Such language would include: · Commitment by afl jurisdictions to furl system build-out over the 20 years (presuming continued Federal funds availability). TransPlan would state that the 'Cuff system "will include at least xx miles of BRT corridor, though final corridor routing has yet to be fully determined. (xx is the total number of miles of corridor shown on the current draft's map.) · Commitment that the great majority of BRT corridor service will feature exclusive busways (say, 80 percent to provide adequate performance and to attract customers. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 6 Work Session · Strengthening language in policy and map regarding features of the BRT system· (E.g., on page 2-26 "Positive characteristics include·.." does not mean the system will actually have those characteristics, and on the map "may have dedicated travel lanes "and ''may employ.. · signal priority"is very weak·) Mr. Pap8 said he was unable to support the motion. He hoped BRT did what it was intended to do but believed the consumer would make that determination, not the City Council or Lane Transit District (LTD). He thought the motion was too rigid and dictated the nature of the system without any flexibility for what might happen ten to twenty years in the future. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. PapS, but said the point of the motion was that the system did not have a chance of working unless it was fully built out. If the BRT system only consisted of a route between downtowns, it would be "doomed" because it would not have the needed ridership or funding support from the federal government. Unless the system met its own criteria, such as exclusive busways, it would not work. The motion stated that BRT was essential to TransPlan and simply called for more specific text in the plan. Mr. Meisner said that the council had discussed the Franklin segment of the system as a three- phase segment; the previous evening the Planning Commission had agreed not to include text about completion of phases 2 and 3 in TransPlan, and he understood from staff that LTD had indicated it had no intention of providing financial or real participation in support of phases 2 and 3; "Phase 1 is what we get." He did not want to create a system that could not succeed and then forced the community, through the triennial review, to fund system improvements or transportation demand management strategies. Mr. Schwetz clarified that Mr. Meisner was stating LTD was only committed to the pilot corridor. Mr. Meisner said that his point was that LTD intended to explore other routes before it completed phases 2 and 3 of the Franklin segment. Mr. Kelly said the proposed motion was again intended to provide internal consistency to TransPlan. If the modeling indicated that the system relied on a system that was fully buildout as shown in the map in TransPlan, the policy language for BRT "better point us in that direction." He agreed with Mr. Pap8 that mid-course changes might be needed, but suggested the triennial review of TransPlan would address that issue. The motion told LTD that the City was behind it, and wanted to see BRT succeed: "Here is the policy language that lets you move forward and make it succeed." Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. PapS. She was very skeptical about BRT and thought better shuttle service throughout the city was more important. She pointed out that Eugene already had very good bus service along some corridors. She did not support the motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Schwetz said the MPC approved a transit measure that addressed transit's contribution to congestion relief along congested corridors. Mr. Rayor asked if BRT was a big part of the modeling. Mr. Schwetz said yes, particularly along major corridors. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Childs confirmed the motion had no impact on the financially constrained project list in TransPlan. Mr. Pap8 asked if privately funded transit providers were addressed in the performance measure. Mr. Schwetz clarified that the plan as drafted only considered the service provided by LTD. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Responding to Mr. Meisner's remarks, Mr. Pap~ disagreed, saying that the success of BRT would be built on the success of the initial corridor and, if ridership increased, he anticipated the system would naturally flow to full buildout; if not, the public would be "telling us something." Mr. Kelly said that the pilot corridor could not be used to judge the success or failure of BRT because he did not think there were enough trips to measure the success of ultimate system buildout. Mr. Schwetz said that all the adopting jurisdictions would agree with a statement that they wanted to support transit and LTD in its efforts to provide good transit service, and BRT seemed to promise a lot. Where he thought the motion problematic was in that it required a commitment from all the jurisdictions for an as-yet untried system. The uncertainty of the future could be a point of contention for the other jurisdictions. The policy was written as a compromise that the Springfield council could live with; as long as the system development proceeded incrementally, the council was supportive. Mr. Schwetz thought the Springfield would object to the required commitment for full system buildout. Mr. Kelly said Mr. Schwetz's points were well-taken. However, he underscored the role of the triennial review as a venue for adjustments. He noted that, when the TransPlan update was initially drafted, the corridor contemplated had been all the way to west Eugene. He suggested that members of the Springfield council were more excited about BRT with the move of Symantec to Springfield and the potential a second BRT route would serve that area. Mr. Rayor agreed with Mr. Kelly that the existing policy was weak. He suggested a funding approach that was based on constructing the most critical links of BRT. The motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Pap~ and Ms. Taylor voting no. The council considered the third motion: (3) Adequate OM&P Funding: The council proposes that the TransPlan include funding and mechanisms to ensure that the community's roadway and bike system at least falls no further behind in its condition of repair. This will require increased OM&P funding in at least some jurisdictions due to the currently deteriorating condition. The council proposes that all revenue sources included in the draft constrained financial plan should be examined by staff and adopting officials; within legal constraints, additional funds from these sources will be moved to OM&P (for both local and State facilities). If such additional revenues are insufficient to at least maintain current system conditions and to build capital projects deemed to be of high priority, the adopting officials will specifically identify a list of potential additional revenue sources and commit to adopting at least one of them at the local level. Such new revenue sources will be used for roadway/bike improvements whose funding has been moved to OM&P, in accordance with the previous paragraph, and for the remaining OM&P shortfall. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 8 Work Session This proposal means, in part, that the foflowing current draft TransPlan language must be made more specific: "Increase revenues through the development of a locally controlled source of revenue equitably tied to afl users of the transportation system..." Note this proposal does not require each jurisdiction to adopt the same revenue source. It merely requires that, to the extent that a new revenue source is required, the adopting officials will make it clear to the public that it will be adopted and that it will be one of a short list of revenue types. Ms. Bettman supported the motion. She said that maintenance of the existing system was a fundamental City responsibility. Whatever revenue was available should be dedicated to funding that basic service before new infrastructure was funded. Failure to maintain and preserve the existing road system would mean the community would have to go back at great expense and rebuild it. The funding list contained projects that were funded by dollars that could otherwise be used for preservation if the political will existed. Ms. Bettman thought the council needed to commit to getting as much of that funding as possible directed to OM&P before money was allocated to new projects. Any new local transportation revenue contemplated by the metropolitan area or by a particular jurisdiction should be adopted after that occurred. Ms. Taylor said that the subject was most important, and it was critical that preservation be funded. It was foolish not to put maintenance first. She said that the issue was the "fall on the sword" issue for her. Mr. Meisner said the motion established a primacy for OM&P. He was not in favor of the second component of the motion, preferring the original language: "a locally controlled source of revenue equitably tied to all users of the transportation system." He had no interest in the MPC or even the council determining that these were the only revenue types that would be considered for certain purposes. Mr. Meisner supported language that gave local jurisdictions flexibility to adopt a locally controlled source of revenue equitably tied to all system users. He was unsure of his position on the motion. Mr. Kelly said he was not calling for fully funded OM&P, but rather that the roads be no further degraded. He did not want the motion characterized as OM&P versus new projects; instead, he was calling for a new revenue to fill the gap if revenues were not adequate. To Mr. Meisner's concern about the second element of the motion, he invited alternative language, saying he was not attempting to restrict or stipulate the revenue sources over the 20-year planning period. He said he was trying to get at the fact that Eugene and Springfield had $160 million in OM&P shortfalls, and the two communities would have to come up with new money for that, and he wanted to make that clear in TransPlan. Mr. Meisner thought the reference that the local revenue would be one of a short list of revenue types limited the options, and he objected to that limitation. Mr. Kelly clarified that prior to TransPlan adoption, he proposed to limit the options to a finite set. Mr. Meisner was not willing to do so. He did not want to attempt to figure out 20 years from now what was equitable and locally controlled. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Schwetz said that the plan contained a list of potential revenue options. He emphasized the policy nature of the plan and noted it was not specific as to implementation, particularly in terms of how a jurisdiction addressed its shortfalls in ©M&P. He referred the council to Chapter 3, page 62, which included various revenue shortfall strategies. Mr. Kelly suggested the reference Mr. Meisner objected to be replaced with a reference to the relevant funding strategies called out in the plan. He wanted to commit the jurisdictions to adopting something. Mr. Rayor said he would probably vote no on the motion because most of the ©M&P shortfall, outside that of the State, was that of the City of Eugene. While he fundamentally agreed with the policy and thought it could be promoted inside Eugene, he did not think it had to be included in a regional plan. If the council wanted the other jurisdictions to share its vision of TransPlan, it needed to "save its ammunition" at this point, given the MPC's past reaction to the council's proposed finance policy, which was similar in nature. Ms. Bettman said that it was her understanding that Eugene was using all the flexible funding it now received from the County for OM&P, and there was other flexible funding that could be spent on ©M&P in the right-of-way that was now being dedicated to projects. The flexibility in that funding regionally was eliminated because "other people were making that decision for us." Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. Continuing, Ms. Bettman said that the Budget Citizen Subcommittee was looking at new revenue sources to cover maintenance and preservation of the existing system, and she anticipated the City would ask the citizens for money for ©M&P while also asking them for more funds to build new infrastructure. She did not think that was the correct approach. She thought if the council dedicated all available funding to ©M&P it could go to the citizens with a clear conscience and ask for more funding for new projects. Mr. Johnson clarified that 98 percent of the transportation dollars controlled by the City of Eugene over the last ten years had been used for ©M&P. He said that the State and federal dollars allocated to specific projects could not be used for anything but the project. Mr. Johnson said the City of Eugene was not funding new construction of roads and had not for ten years, except for projects paid for by systems development charges and assessments. He confirmed that the funding controlled by the County could be used for ©M&P rather than for road projects. County Commissioner Peter Sorenson concurred with Mr. Johnson and noted that Eugene received some gas tax dollars directly from the State that were not passed through the County. The County had a road partnership program with the 12 Lane County cities, and Eugene received the largest share of those dollars. That program was likely to continue. Mr. Sorenson agreed with Ms. Bettman about the importance of adequate funding of ©M&P. Mr. Kelly acknowledged that Eugene's ©M&P shortfall was much larger than Springfield's, but pointed out (::)DOT had a much larger shortfall, and the proposed policy was intended to speak as a metropolitan area to (::)DOT and emphasize the need for adequate State ©M&P funding. In addition, if the council decided it was an issue for Eugene alone, some of the revenue sources mentioned in the plan could not be done alone; for example, a vehicle registration fee had to be done in conjunction with the County. He preferred a regional approach, but said that if there was a Eugene policy in TransPlan that had "buy-in" from the other jurisdictions about revenue sources MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 10 Work Session that needed to be adopted on a regional level, he could accept that. However, he did not think that was the preferable approach. Mr. Schwetz suggested the issues under discussion were implementation issues. Mr. Kelly disagreed. Mr. Schwetz persisted, maintaining that the issue was an implementation issue. He believed that as the issue played out regionally, it would be less about Mr. Kelly's concerns about adequate funding for ©M&P and more about local control. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Schwetz, saying that essentially the council was telling two other jurisdictions how it thought they should spend their money. He believed the council would object if the other jurisdictions attempted to do the same to Eugene. Mr. Kelly said that was not his intent. However, if the range of potential revenue sources could only be adopted at the county level or by both Eugene and Springfield, he did not see any other logical approach. Responding to Mr. Kelly's last comment, Mr. Schwetz said that few of the revenues on the list that could be used to meet the City's ©M&P needs required metropolitan cooperation. The gas tax was an exception. He believed that Eugene could successfully implement the policy unilaterally. Mr. Pap~ thought Mr. Rayor's points were well-taken, and he concurred with the remarks of both Mr. Schwetz and Mr. Johnson. He agreed the issues involved were implementation issues, and objected to demanding how the other jurisdictions would implement the plan. He thought each jurisdiction should be allowed flexibility to be creative. Mr. Pap~ did not support the motion. Mr. Rayor said that he did not anticipate county residents would support a gas tax. He thought there were local options available to Eugene. He did not think the issue should go back to MPC again, as he anticipated it could have a detrimental effect on the other MPC's acceptance of the other motions. Ms. Bettman said that the council tried to achieve the same objective with the finance policy it proposed to the other jurisdictions, which she believed had many loopholes in it, but in spite of those loopholes it was not accepted by the other jurisdictions. If the council valued maintaining the existing system and wanted to protect the taxpayers' existing investment in the infrastructure and had only limited funds, it must do something. She thought the motion was the option the council was left with. Ms. Nathanson did not support the motion because the plan was a multi-jurisdictional plan and the motion could be detrimental to the City's working relationship with the other jurisdictions. If the concept was acceptable to the City's partners in TransPlan, that would be great, but she did not think that would happen. If the motion did not pass, it did not preclude the City from taking action alone. She said that the City could always raise the issue of a countywide gas tax or countywide motor vehicle registration with its interjurisdictional partners. She did not know if a countywide gas tax would be approved, and wondered if a metropolitan gas tax might not be a better approach. Mr. Meisner said he would reluctantly vote to support the motion, although he continued to have the same objections to its second element. However, he did not want to be perceived as opposing the first part of the motion, which he found very important. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson reported that the Budget Citizen Subcommittee was discussing the potential of a metropolitan gas tax. The MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 11 Work Session Springfield council was talking about a locally controlled source of revenue, including the potential of a gas tax. Discussion was also occurring about the topic between the staffs of the two cities. The motion passed, 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Meisner voting yes; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Pap~, and Ms. Nathanson voting no. Mr. Meisner left the meeting. Ms. Childs referred the council to a motion developed by Mr. Rayor, which was intended to substitute for the MPC recommendation on issue 14.2. She recommended approval of the motion. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved that the Eugene City Council recommend that the MPC recommendation on Issue 14.2 be replaced with the following new Bicycle Policy: Add the following Policy to Chapter 2, Page 29 (May 1999 Draft TransPlan) after TSI Bicycle Policy #3: TSI Bicycle Poficy #4: Implementation of Priority Bikeway Miles Policy Statement: Give funding priority (ideally within the first 3 to 5 years after adoption of TransPlan) to stand-alone bikeway projects that are included in the definition of "Priority Bikeway Miles" and that increase the use of alternative modes. Policy Definition/Intent: This policy supports consideration and programming of stand-alone "priority bikeway miles" bikeway facilities in the first 3-5 years following adoption of TransPlan. Stand-alone bike projects are those listed in TransPlan not associated with roadway projects (Multi-Use Paths Without Road Projects and On-Street Lanes or Routes Without Roadway Projects.) A key alternative measure for demonstrating reduced reliance on the auto is the building of Priority Bikeway Miles. Priority bikeway projects consist of those projects that: · are along an essential core route on which the overall bicycle system depends; and · fill in a critical gap in the existing bicycle system; or · overcome a barrier where no other nearby existing or programmed bikeway alternatives exist (e.g., river, major street, highway); or · significantly improve bicycle users' safety in a given corridor. The intent of this policy is to maximize the impact of bicycle projects in TransPlan by implementing the most important bike projects early in the period following adoption of TransPlan. This policy also provides additional policy direction in support of Finance Policy #5: Short-Term Project Priorities. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 12 Work Session Reference: Based on TPR 660-12-0040(2)(d). Also see Finance Policy #5, Chapter 2, page 37. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that changing the policy would change the balance of the plan. She asked how the motion affected the removal of on-street parking for bicycle lanes, and if it lent additional policy weight to removal of on-street parking in favor of on-street bicycle lanes. Mr. Schwetz said that it could have that impact. He added that there were not that many such projects on the list of projects. He was unsure of the miles of roadway involved. Ms. Bettman indicated she needed that information to support the motion. She cited her concerns about Jefferson Street, included on the project list, which would require removal of on-street parking desired by neighbors and could impact small businesses. She questioned whether the weight of public input would be overwhelmed by the weight of the policy. Mr. Schwetz clarified that the intent of the motion was to build the projects on the list that provide the most critical connections, filled in gaps, and enhanced safety. He agreed with Ms. Childs' recommendation. Nothing in the policy changed the normal process by which each jurisdiction implemented their bicycle projects. Residents would still be given a chance to express concerns, and he anticipated projects would not happen where there was resistance. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding new motorized scooter technology, Mr. Johnson clarified that motorized vehicles were not allowed on the bicycle paths and motorized scooters were not allowed anywhere. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comments, Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Schwetz, saying the policy would ensure that gaps were filled and connections were made sooner than would occur with the previous policy. The existing processes, including public involvement, would continue to exist. Ms. Nathanson supported the motion, saying if a transportation route was considered essential it should be treated as a priority. She believed that local conditions would be addressed when bicycle paths were built. The motion enabled priority connections to move ahead. Ms. Nathanson noted her receipt of a packet from a person selling motorized bicycles, and said she had made an inquiry of Diane Bishop of Public Works Transportation about the subject, who responded with an answer she hoped could be shared with the entire council. Mr. Rayor said that in the absence of the policy, he did not think priority paths would be constructed. Ms. Bettman expressed concern the result of the motion would be nothing but parking removal and painted bicycle lanes, and there would be no money for design strategies that addressed neighborhood livability. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the removal of on-street parking near small businesses for installation of bicycle paths. She thought there might be unwanted consequences from the motion. She requested clarification of the motion. Mr. Schwetz clarified that it took the existing bicycle list and identified a subset of those projects that met the criteria outlined in the motion. He noted that no new projects were being added to TransPlan. Those bicycle projects that were considered most critical would be built early on. Mr. Schwetz confirmed that some were off-street bicycle paths. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 13 Work Session Ms. Nathanson likened the policy to the City's Sidewalk Program, which established priorities for sidewalk projects using objective criteria. The motion passed, 4:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve the MPC recommendations for amendments to the May 1999 draft TransPlan as shown on the Attachment C, and as modified with the substition of the new bicycle policy for Policy 14.2. Ms. Bettman preferred not to take action on the motion until the MPC considered the council's actions on the three earlier motions considered that evening. She reiterated that the motions represented her "bottom line." Mr. Kelly supported he motion, saying that he wanted to demonstrate to the MPC the City's interest in reaching compromise on the plan. He suggested that the council could revisit the issues if necessary after the MPC met. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 14 Work Session