New Search
"' -J "' - "- - -- -- • • `- - - ". •• .... aaauaaaauaaavv uaau as lulaJ YY \.l tr J\. V Vl l 1J u . ,t aUI U <br /> because they were never brought up to City standards. She did not know the answer to the problem, but <br /> she agreed that while the council needed to show leadership, a broader conversation was needed. She <br /> liked the idea of reprioritizing the existing budget. She said that her ward had many low- income residents <br /> and she questioned whether they could afford the improvements needed to their wards. <br /> Ms. Ortiz informed Ms. Taylor that her ward would be happy to take her street light. <br /> Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Pape, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. <br /> The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. <br /> Mr. Pryor said he was not hearing support for Option 1. He believed the council was discussing <br /> something along the lines of Option 3, with interest expressed in new revenue options not limited to the <br /> ones listed and reprioritization of the budget to the degree possible. <br /> Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Pape, moved to direct staff to look at Option 2 with a combi- <br /> nation of revenue opportunities, including the listed ones or others. <br /> Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. <br /> Mr. Kelly said because the motion included the potential for new fees, he could not support it. He <br /> recalled that he supported the transportation system maintenance fee in its original form. When it was <br /> modified in fall 2004, he no longer supported it. While that was not general purpose revenue, he thought <br /> it broad, sustainable, and fair. He was not opposed to revisiting the issue. <br /> Mr. Pape offered a friendly amendment, accepted by the maker of the motion, to add to the motion that <br /> staff come back within three months with a list of the new projects in the Capital Improvement Program <br /> funded with money that could have been used for operations, preservation, and maintenance. <br /> Ms. Bettman said if staff was dependent on a motion, one should have been provided to the council. The <br /> MINUTES— Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> Option 1: The council could direct the city manager to build the Road Fund budget based on known, <br /> existing revenue sources, which would require service reductions of approximately $2 million, <br /> phased in during the FY07 and FY08 fiscal years. <br /> Option 2: The council could direct the city manager to develop an FY07 proposed Road Fund budget <br /> based on funding assumption to include new revenue sized to address not only the projected <br /> ongoing operating deficit in street operations and maintenance but which would also generate <br /> additional revenue to be dedicated to the backlog of unfunded projects in the Pavement <br /> Preservation Program. <br /> This funding package could include: 1) funding the Street Trees Program with a combination <br /> of an Urban Forestry Fee and a shift in funding for certain activities to the Stormwater Fund <br /> and General Fund, as appropriate; 2) a proposal for street lighting assessment districts to <br /> provide dedicated funding for street light maintenance; and /or 3) a proposal for reestablishing <br /> the previously - repealed Transportation System Maintenance Fee to shore up funding for the <br /> remaining Road Fund O &M activities and to address the annual funding gap in the Pavement <br /> Preservation Program. <br /> L: \CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M0509261S050926B.doc <br />