Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/15/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 15, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Memorandum of Understanding Between McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center and the City of Eugene City Manager Dennis Taylor, Planning and Development Director Susan Muir, and Glenn Klein of the City Attorney’s Office were present for the item. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to authorize the City Manager to sign the Memo- randum of Understanding. Mr. Pryor declared a conflict of interest due to his wife’s employment with the McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center. He left the meeting table and did not participate in the discussion or decision. Ms. Taylor noted that she sent an e-mail to the manager on January 29 indicating she had problems with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) but had not received a reply. She discussed her concerns about the MOU, asking if the City position funded by McKenzie-Willamette (Section 5) would be a temporary employee, and if the City could find someone well-qualified willing to take a temporary job. Ms. Muir said it was likely the City would use an in-house employee and backfill those duties with a temporary employee. Much would depend on the work load and other assignments that were in place when the application was received. Ms. Taylor suggested the result might be that other assignments may not be completed or would not be done by well-qualified staff. Ms. Muir did not think so. She said the City had minimum standards every application must meet and would ensure that the application did so. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen to the temporary employee after the project was completed. Ms. Muir said the person hired would be made aware of the status of the job. Ms. Taylor suggested that a highly qualified planner would be unlikely to take a temporary job. Ms. Muir indicated the successful applicant would have to meet the job qualifications established by the City. Ms. Taylor asked who would pay for the cost of the City’s work with McKenzie-Willamette on identifying potential funded sources for any needed transportation improvements (Section 8). Ms. Muir indicated that could be covered by application fees or the funding for the temporary Planning Division position. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor referred to Section 9 of the MOU and asked what role the City had in developing additional funding resources for transportation funding. Ms. Muir said that task would typically happen in any development application. The City would collaborate with this or any applicant on such an effort. Mr. Klein added that it did not commit the City to providing any resources; it merely committed the City to talking to the hospital about possible funding sources. The City would lend the hospital its expertise regarding any available funding sources. That would eventually lead to another agreement the council would review in the future. Ms. Taylor referred to Section 10 of the MOU, which indicated the City would support the applicant’s certificate of need. She asked why the City would do so, and what resources would be used. City Manager Taylor indicated that the City had provided support for certificate of need applications for both McKenzie- Willamette to relocate in Eugene and PeaceHealth at its Hilyard Street campus to ensure the community had good health care resources. Ms. Taylor thought it questionable for the City to be lobbying for McKenzie- Willamette Medical Clinic. Mr. Kelly said it was well-known he was “far from crazy” about this location for the hospital. However, at present, the location under consideration was the only one. He wanted to work with McKenzie-Willamette Medical Clinic on the proposal as long as it did not involve the incentives the council had previously discussed providing to a hospital that located within 2-1/2 miles of the city center. Mr. Kelly referred to the e-mails to other councilors he sent out the previous day regarding proposed revisions to the draft MOU, and noted they had been incorporated in the MOU. He had wanted the MOU to be clear that any transportation projects associated with the hospital went through the same process as other transportation projects, and Section 9 had been revised to reflect that. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the motion to state the changes in the draft at the councilors’ places would be included in the MOU. The amendment to the mo- tion passed, 5:0 (Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Papé not having yet arrived). Ms. Bettman asked why the County’s cooperation would be required for changes to property within the urban growth boundary (UGB). Ms. Muir said that prior to any annexation, the County would need to be party to the process. Ms. Bettman recalled that the annexation had been approved. Ms. Muir explained that the draft was prepared before the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission annexation hearing and the section included because the annexation had a delayed effective date and was not yet in force. Mr. Klein added that a site-specific amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) inside the UGB and outside the city limits must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and City Council. Once the annexation took effect, only the City would act. Ms. Bettman asked what the MOU did beyond what the City was legally obligated to provide to the applicant. Mr. Klein said the MOU established the intent of the medical center in regard to the size and type of hospital contemplated. It discussed the Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design (LEED) certification. It outlined some, but not all steps, necessary before construction could commence. It committed the medical center to funding the staff resources necessary to expedite the development review. It indicated the City would consult on transportation funding resources. There was no legal obligation for the City to do so. In regard to the City’s commitments, it provided for the expedited review based on funding from the medical center. City Manager Dennis Taylor added that the council had been clear to McKenzie-Willamette Medical Clinic about the level of incentives a hospital locating outside the preferred area could expect. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for that. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman suggested that Section 6 in the MOU committed the City to enabling site preparation by December 1, which was approximately six months. Ms. Muir clarified that McKenzie-Willamette Medical Clinic was committing to an application submission time line that allowed for the deadline to be met. The City would be processing the applications that allowed the clinic to proceed, but that did not commit the City to the outcome of the application review. Ms. Bettman said the deadline was not a problem unless it interfered with the public’s ability to participate in decision-making points or the City’s thoroughness in the development review. Ms. Bettman maintained that there were issues that had been “glossed over” during the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission hearing, such as an agreement signed by the Planning Director in the past that was still in effect. She had not received an answer to her question of the significance of that document, which should have been addressed before the boundary commission. She suggested that in this case, the use of the word ‘expedite’ meant “steamroll.” Ms. Ortiz arrived. Mr. Poling said that the use of the word ‘expedite’ did not imply the City would truncate its public processes. Ms. Muir concurred. Mr. Poling asked about the status of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). He said there was a major public concerns about the access to and egress from the development site. He asked how the transportation improvements needed to State facilities would be paid for, adding that the City did not have the money and the funding would have to come from another source. Ms. Muir indicated that the TIA would examine those issues. Mr. Klein added that the council would have the TIA before it when it considered the Metro Plan amendment and could evaluate the solutions being proposed at that time and reject or accept them. Mr. Papé arrived. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said that staff was contemplating an ordinance that approved the Metro Plan amendment and stipulated that if the hospital was not constructed by a date certain, the designation and zoning would revert. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend Section 5 of the MOU to add a third sentence that read “McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center will not object to the City making the approvals of the Metro Plan amendment, zone change, and conditional use permit con- tingent upon the construction of the hospital described in paragraph 1, and having the ap- provals be automatically rescinded in the event the hospital is not constructed.” Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if the property owner objected. Mr. Klein said the City still had the authority to act. The ordinance would make it impossible for the property to be used for another use. Mr. Kelly concurred with the amendment being offered, saying it would preclude the potential of undesirable commercial development if the hospital was not built. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Papé voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman moved to amend the motion by changing Level 3 to Level 2. The motion failed to receive a second. Ms. Bettman explained her interest in the motion was to ensure that the city had a Level 2 hospital. Ms. Taylor agreed to second Ms. Bettman’s amendment. Ms. Bettman said she had not discussed the issue with McKenzie-Willamette Medical Clinic but had heard early in the process that if the City wanted a higher trauma level, the hospital would be willing to provide it. She thought the City had little leverage in the discussion and should at least insist on a Level 2 trauma center. Ms. Ortiz could not support the motion. She said the City did not need to be prescriptive and tell the organization what it should do in order to give it what it needed to locate in Eugene. If those who staffed the organization believed it was necessary, they could request a higher level through the Trauma Site Survey when audited. City Manager Taylor indicated that amendment proposed by Ms. Bettman was not acceptable to the hospital. Mr. Poling asked the level rating of the hospital proposed to be on the Eugene Water & Electric Board site. City Manager Taylor believed it was the same as was being proposed. Ms. Bettman said the hospital could build a Level 4 facility if it wanted. The MOU before the council addressed what the City would do for the McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center, and she thought the MOU should also discuss what the McKenzie-Willamette Medical Clinic would do for the City. In the context of negotiations, she thought the City should ask for what it needed. She maintained the hospital was asking for special consideration, and in exchange for that special consideration, the City Council should levy that to benefit the public it served. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend time for the item by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Taylor did not think it appropriate for the City to devote staff resources to expedite the development review. She believed the public would object. She maintained that even if the hospital paid the extra staff costs, “something would get shoved out the way,” given that the council continually heard about resource shortfalls in the Planning Division. Ms. Bettman opposed the motion. She said any entity was welcome to apply for development under the current code and receive what the City provided to all entities. In this case, she thought the City should remain neutral. She believed the MOU implied a certain approval and an extraordinary commitment on the part of the City, and she thought the City should remain neutral in the issue. Ms. Bettman believed there were other locations for the hospital under consideration that would better serve the medical needs of the community. That might not result in increased tax revenue to the City, and might MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 4 Work Session not mean babies born to Eugene residents had a Eugene birth certificate, but comprehensive emergency services would be available to the most people. The motion passed, 5:0:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 5 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: I-5/Franklin Interchange The council was joined for the item by Lisa Gardner of the Public Works Transportation Division and Tom Boyatt of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser was also present for the item. Ms. Gardner introduced the item, noting that Mr. Boyatt would overview the process to date, summarize the public involvement, and describe ODOT’s assessment of the project status. Mr. Boyatt introduced Jay Lee and Tim Burchart of ODOT, who were also present for the item, as well as Sam Sessions of CH2M Hill. Mr. Boyatt reviewed the Community Dialogue undertaken by ODOT to assess the public sentiment regarding the proposed I-5/Franklin Interchange, which included several opportunities for public input. He said that input was not uniform in nature as some offering testimony were opposed, some were in support, and others supported an alternative. Mr. Boyatt said that it did not appear there was an actual transporta- tion problem at this interchange that would be solved by the addition of ramps, and the State system would not appear to benefit. He said that ODOT believed it needed to focus on the need that existed on the State highway; the cost of maintaining that system would be about $500 million annually over 20 years. The Regional Transportation Program included a constrained list of projects that were tied to future projected revenue, and the list was about $400 million short of funding. Continuing, Mr. Boyatt reiterated that ODOT did not see a State transportation problem and preferred to work on other alternatives to congestion. He said that it appeared there was community interest in pursuing other connections at Franklin Boulevard and I-5, and ODOT wanted to respect that as well. He acknowl- edged there was a federal earmark that would allow the project to go to the next step. He asked that the Eugene-Springfield community recognize that the project was more of a community development project than a State highway project. Ms. Gardner said the Community Dialogue had been initiated to address safety, access, and circulation issues in the area in question. The study area had included I-5 at Franklin and the Glendwood/I-5 interchange because of the functional interrelationships of those interchanges. The region requested and received $400,000 to continue refinement planning in the area. While ODOT had concluded there may not be a specific State transportation problem, there was community interest in moving forward with the study process to further assess whether there were access, circulation, and safety issues to be addressed. Staff recommended the council move forward with the refinement planning process, which would provide an opportunity to complete the assessment and determine future needs. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Gardner did not think ODOT’s response took away the possibility of ramps but enlarged the scope of what would be examined. Mr. Boyatt said the City had a funding source and the benefit of a year-long Community Dialogue. He believed that construction of such an interchange would be a community decision. He added that the language in the federal earmark was broad enough to allow the community to look at both the Glenwood and Franklin intersections. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Boyatt said that it would be difficult for ODOT to prioritize an investment in ramps above other State system priorities. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Gardner said she understood there was some flexibility in how the earmarked funds were used within a defined area. However, the funding could not be used for improvements to the Beltline. Mr. Heuser said that the earmark must have a relationship to the area that was the subject of the Community Dialogue; otherwise, it would invalidate the earmark. It was his experience that such money would unlikely to be reprogrammed by Congress for improvements to Beltline. Ms. Ortiz asked when ODOT would be looking at the Beltline/I-5 area. Mr. Boyatt said that there was a commitment to start refinement planning for that project in fiscal year 2007, and there was $1 million in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) work related to the project. There was funding planned for the next STIP cycle. Mr. Boyatt said the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) and Lane County had established additional funding for that project as a major priority. He anticipated a proposal to add money for the Environmental Impact Statement work as well. He hoped the refinement planning would identify the biggest problems along the corridor so the NEPA process could be focused on that. Ms. Solomon expressed disappointment that ODOT was not interested in the interchange, which she thought was an important interchange that had significant safety issues. She wanted to continue to study the issue and get out ahead of the problems so if the City decided against ramps if could identify other alternatives and be prepared to act when money became available. She did not think the proposed federal match was unreasonable and suggested the amount was a value when compared to the costs of the new City Hall. Ms. Solomon asked if Springfield would provide part of the needed match money for the federal grant. Ms. Gardner believed that Springfield would be prepared to participate equally in the match, and the Springfield City Council would meet to discuss the proposal soon. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the manner in which Mr. Boyatt framed the discussion; he believed the issue of local benefit was worth considering. He liked the idea of expanding the scope of the examination to look at other alternatives. He thought the amount Eugene would be asked to spend was worthwhile in terms of its benefits. He would encourage the Springfield City Council to support the proposal as well. Mr. Papé believed that the issue had returned in the form it had because of the way the community had handled the West Eugene Parkway. He said that ODOT wanted to see substantial community support for the proposed improvements before proceeding. He also supported expanding the examination to include other alternatives and shared the interest of other councilors in knowing Springfield’s level of support. Springfield staff member Nick Arnis declined to speculate as to what the Springfield council would do. Mr. Papé wanted to keep the process moving forward. He said if ODOT would take a greater interest in the project if the study concluded there was a significant impact on the State system. Mr. Boyatt said that the NEPA process required that a transportation project have an identified problem, a purpose and need, and a preferred alternative or solution to the problem. Mr. Boyatt said ODOT, in its review of the regional travel demand model, found an increase in local trips on the interstate, which was not the State’s preference. He suggested that a community-driven project might come out of the study. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, Ms. Lee indicated that there was a project team tasked with ensuring any decision made at I-5 and Franklin could be adapted to the new bridge. There would be an opportunity to make the connection as the bridge would not be built in such a way that a ramp could not be MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 7 Work Session attached at some time in the future. The issue of how many lanes were built on I-5 was undecided. She did not think the study would impact those issues. Mr. Boyatt said the study would potentially inform ODOT as to how wide I-5 would be, and if there were other improvements needed at the off ramps at 126 and 105. Mr. Papé believed the study should proceed and the City should take advantage of the federal earmark. Mr. Kelly thanked ODOT and City staff. He referred to the signage around I-5 and the Franklin interchange and said it was challenging, to say the least. He asked if ODOT could work with the two local jurisdictions on a project to improve signage. Ms. Lee indicated that ODOT would be happy to partner on such a project. Mr. Kelly thought that was a very positive thing. Mr. Kelly said he continued to believe a full interchange at I-5/Franklin was a good thing in the abstract and for that reason he had been willing to study the issue. However, the process had gone beyond the abstract and it was now clear, for example, that the interchange could not be constructed with the replacement bridge. He was also concerned about the loss of access to residents in the lower Laurel Hill Valley. He said that the estimated costs had given him sticker shock. Any study that went forward should consider what was doable, and he did not think the ramps across the river were doable. He also noted considerable community opposition to the project and wished to constrain what was studied to some degree. Mr. Poling thanked ODOT staff for its honesty about the need for the project. He liked the idea of exploring possibilities for improvements to the ramps already in place. He thought the fact the study was not limited to adding new ramps were a positive thing. Mr. Poling asked what would happen if one jurisdiction did not want to proceed. Ms. Gardner said whatever jurisdiction supported the proposal would have to determine if the cost was worth doing the study alone. . Mr. Poling suggested the $20,000 cost was a worthwhile investment. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Gardner that a portion of the match could be provided through end-kind services. Ms. Gardner was unsure of that amount. She noted that ODOT had indicated it might co-manage the project and provide funding. The value of staff resources was included within the $20,000 match. Ms. Bettman said that it appeared there were several different types of ramps were still being discussed and asked if bridge ramps were “off the table.” Ms. Gardner clarified that ODOT had not found a clear transportation problem to solve for the State highway need but she did not think anything was “off the table.” The refinement planning process would frame what was examined and identify next steps. Ms. Bettman said the motion mentioned both I-5 at Glenwood and I-5 at Franklin, and all the options related to Franklin included the elevated bridge ramps. Mr. Boyatt indicated there were one or two diamond folded ramps that did not cross the river but had an impact on adjacent property. Ms. Bettman indicated she could support an examination of the I-5/Glenwood interchange in terms of improved access and egress and converting that area into more of a gateway to the community. She acknowledged it was a distance from Franklin Boulevard where the city limits commenced but the cost differential between the two areas was huge and the money more effectively spent on that area than on bridge ramps at Franklin Boulevard. However, she was not sure given that vague wording in the materials and the lack of a shared understanding among councilors as to the nature of the project. She pointed out that Glenwood/I-5 intersection was under Springfield’s jurisdiction and she did not recall a time when Springfield MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 8 Work Session had offered to pay a cash match for a Eugene project. Mr. Boyatt clarified that I-5 was the demarcation between Eugene and Springfield, so half of the Glenwood interchange was in Eugene. Ms. Bettman asked what staff envisioned would result from adoption of the staff-prepared motion. Ms. Gardner said staff envisioned an examination of a broad geographic area to look at access and circulation for the two cities. Staff did not want to limit the examination. Mr. Sessions noted that approximately two-thirds and as much as 80 percent of the vehicles traveling from either the Glenwood or Franklin interchange were traveling to and from Eugene. He said that whether the actual concrete was in the City’s jurisdiction, the destinations people were traveling to have overwhelmingly been Eugene destinations. Ms. Taylor asked why the City should study a problem that did not exist. She questioned what had been spent on the issue to date. Mr. Boyatt said that ODOT had spent about $180,000 on the process. Ms. Taylor asked if Mr. Boyatt would say the money was spent for nothing. Mr. Boyatt said he would not say that. He thought it was important to explore community questions when they arose. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Gardner said the City had a Congressional earmark of $400,000 that required a ten-percent match. Staff was recommending the City pay half of the ten percent and that Springfield pay the other half. Ms. Taylor wanted to know if the study could be limited to the Glenwood interchange. Ms. Gardner did not know, pointing out that Eugene was the first of the three jurisdictions that would consider the issue. Ms. Taylor indicated that she would likely vote against the motion as she did not want to waste taxpayer money, no matter the source. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to extend time for the item by five minutes. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the continued study of the I-5 at Franklin interchange (including I-5 at Glenwood) with a refinement planning process, with a financial contribution for the local match of federal funds up to $20,000. Ms. Ortiz said that she found it amazing that the City could not use the federal earmark to address the actual transportation problems that existed. She said that $400,000 was a lot of money to study improvements that the community might not be affordable down the road. Mr. Kelly thanked Ms. Lee for her remarks about collaboration on signage and hoped that City staff followed up. Mr. Kelly thought it reasonable to say there were no State issues involved, but there were local transporta- tion issues as well as community development issues for the council to consider. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to add a sentence that said “The refinement planning process shall not include consideration of additional ramps across the Willamette River.” Mr. Kelly said the motion would still allow for consideration of both interchanges and could even include an examination of a new structure at I-5 and Franklin Boulevard that did not affect the river. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Poling did not want to limit the study but based on the community input ODOT received he would support the amendment. The amendment to the motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Papé voting no. Mr. Papé advocated for a study of signage throughout the State system. Mr. Papé clarified with Mr. Sessions that the figures he had offered were specific to traffic traveling to Eugene, not to Springfield. Mr. Papé said the State might not have identified a problem to the State system but that did not mean there were no local problems at the Franklin and Glenwood interchanges. He thought there were many safety issues that existed in the area in question. Ms. Taylor moved to give priority in the study to environment, aesthetic, and cost factors, as well as neighborhood impacts. The motion died for lack of a second. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. C. WORK SESSION: Strategies for Long-Term Financial Stability for Transportation System Operations, Maintenance, and Preservation Public Works Director Kurt Corey and Senior Management Analyst Larry Hill of the Financial Services Division were present for them item. Mr. Corey reminded the council of its September 26 work session on the topic, during which it discussed the three elements of road funding in Eugene (operations and mainte- nance, capital preservation, and new construction). At that time, he had reported that a $586,000 shortfall existed in the operational budget, which was projected to grow to $800,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and $2 million in FY08. He attributed the shortfall to the fact the service was funded through the State gas tax and Lane County Road Fund. The gas tax had not increased in ten years and revenues from the Road Fund had steadily decreased. The capital preservation budget continued to be about $4.7 million short annually, although some progress had been made. The deferred maintenance backlog was now in excess of $100 million. Mr. Corey indicated that additional efficiency gains sufficient to fill the gaps were not possible. Mr. Corey reviewed a series of strategies for the long-term financial stability of transportation funding. They included street lighting fees; a total or partial shift of funding for street trees and median maintenance to the Stormwater Fund and other City funds; and establishment of a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF). He said that attachments B and D in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) provided additional history on the TSMF. He also called attention to the staff memorandum prepared as Attachment A in response to questions regarding the City’s current list of street projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to include in the FY07 Proposed Budget a shift in 50 percent of the funding for the street trees/median main- tenance program from the Road Fund to the Stormwater Fund. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 10 Work Session Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Solomon believed there was a reasonable nexus between street trees, which must be watered, and the City’s stormwater system. Ms. Taylor asked about the impact of the motion on the Stormwater Fund, and if an increase in the monthly stormwater fee would be needed to address that impact. Mr. Corey said that residents would pay about 50 cents more each month. Ms. Taylor said she could support the motion if the council would raise the stormwater fee to support other important programs. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to increase the stormwater fees $1 monthly for the average bill. There was no second. Ms. Taylor indicated that due to the failure of her amendment, she would vote against the motion. Ms. Bettman asked how much of the Street Tree Program budget was devoted to planting trees and how much was devoted to cutting them down. Mr. Corey responded that he could not give exact figures, but the cost of removing trees was a small part of the budget; the vast majority was spent on tree maintenance. Ms. Bettman said she would vote against all the motions prepared by staff. She said that when one looked at past CIPs, one saw “big expensive projects” where the funding sources changed over time from dedicated funds to flexible funds, such as Surface Transportation Program or County Road Funds. She cited Chad Drive as an example. Other examples were projects that were not in the CIP but came forward nonetheless. Millions in flexible funding had been spent on new capital projects when it could have been spent on operations, preservation, and maintenance. Ms. Bettman believed the staff proposal was for an extraordinarily expensive road program. Mr. Kelly said the memorandum prepared by staff regarding the CIP was interesting but it did not answer the questions he had asked on September 26, which were reflected on page 8 of the minutes of the September 26 meeting. Speaking to the motion, Mr. Kelly said that because street tree maintenance was, in the distant past, not in the Road Fund, he could contemplate the shift being proposed. He clarified that implicit in the motion was that the stormwater fee would be increased to cover the increase in costs, and the motion spoke only to the 50 percent funding. Any additional changes would require council action. Mr. Kelly indicated support for the motion. Mr. Poling suggested that rather than “nickel and dime” residents, the City reconsider and repackage the TSMF, including the 50 stormwater fee increase, and send it to the voters for approval. Mr. Corey said the answer depended on the council’s collective philosophy about how to provide services. He said there was no reason the cost could not be rolled in the TSMF, which would then need to be about $6.5 million annually. The down side was that there were those who feel strongly the concept of the TSMF was okay but only if it was used to address the backlog of maintenance and if the work was contracted out. He thought a TSMF would be best, but staff was trying to identify different services provided through the fund and strategies to MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 11 Work Session fund them. City Manager Taylor said that all the mechanisms under consideration were in play in other communities. Mr. Poling wanted to find permanent funding for the Street Lighting Program but noted the unpopularity of fees imposed without a vote. He asked about what public processes existed or if the City would merely implement the fees without input. Mr. Corey said that utility rates and fees are set through an administrative process but that could be appealed. Mayor Piercy said it was clear the council would not complete its discussion and asked for feedback from the manager and council. City Manager Taylor suggested the council meet one-half early the following Wednesday and continue the discussion. Mr. Papé objected, saying that the topic was not particularly urgent and another work session could be scheduled. Mr. Kelly agreed. City Manager Taylor said he would work with the mayor to schedule the topic, and cautioned the council that meant some other scheduled work session items would slip. Ms. Taylor advocated for the resumption of two-hour work sessions to allow the council to complete its work. She continued to hope the City received an additional source of revenue for the General Fund so that such things as street lights could be paid for from that source. Mr. Papé suggested the council consider adding a work session on the third Monday. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Oritz, moved to table the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 12 Work Session