JOINT LANE COUNTY BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS, CITIES OF EUGENE,

SPRINGFIELD, AND LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT BOARD

WORK SESSION

 

DoubleTree Hotel, 3280 Gateway, Springfield

July 12, 2000

5:00 p.m.

APPROVED 8/2/00

 

TWELFTH READING AND DELIBERATION Ordinance PA 1132 Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to Adopt a Revised "Transportation Element" and Related Changes to the Plan Text; Adopting Revisions to the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan); and Adopting a Severability Clause. (NBA & PM 9/8/99, 9/29/99, 10/20/99, 12/1/99, 1/25/00, 2/15/00, 3/14/00, 3/28/00, 4/11/00, 5/2/00 & 6/27/00) Members Present:

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

Mayor Maureen Weathers, presided.  She called the Joint Elected Officials TransPlan meeting to order for the Springfield City Council.  Present from the Springfield City Council: Anne Ballew, Tammy Fitch, Lyle Hatfield, Sid Leiken, Christine Lundberg and Fred Simmons.

 

Mayor Jim Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.  Present from the Eugene City Council: Pat Farr, David Kelly, Bobby Lee, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pape, Gary Rayor and Betty Taylor.

 

Commissioner Peter Sorenson called the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners to order.  Present from the Board of Commissioners: Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., and Anna Morrison.  Cindy Weeldreyer was excused.

 

Hilary Wylie called the meeting to order for the Lane Transit District.  Present from the LTD Board:  Rob Bennett, Dave Kleger, Dean Kortge and Virginia Lauritsen.

 

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

 

Tom Schwetz, LCOG, explained the first and third bullets under number two.  He reported the jurisdictions had 25 work sessions over the past six months.  He said they had taken the result of the work sessions and summarized them in table two, in terms of the level of difference.  He added 55 issues were discussed and 18 of them were of a nature where everyone said the same thing and nothing needed to be done.

 

Schwetz said with the minor differences (differences that consist of non-policy text changes, and single agency issues), looking over the results of the work sessions, adopting officials indicated preferences with only minor differences.  He explained they will go through a consent calendar-type of process for the two types of differences.

 

Schwetz explained for the next level difference (moderate), the category represented relatively straightforward changes to policy or differences thought by staff to be less complex and controversial than major differences.  He indicated the last level of differences (major differences) is an area where adopting officials indicated different preferences during individual work sessions and staff thought these issues were complex, controversial and central to the plan and needed to be resolved during the joint work sessions.  He reported there were 14 minor differences, 8 moderate differences and 15 major differences.

 

David Kelly, Eugene City Councilor, asked if consensus couldn’t be reached, if an item would go to MPC and if their role would be advisory.

 

Jim Carlson, City of Eugene, reiterated that each jurisdiction has to ultimately adopt the same language.  He added the role of MPC is dispute resolution to craft language that will become acceptable to all groups.

 

Sorenson read Ordinance PA 1132 into the record.

 

Carlson said the objective was to resolve as many of the outstanding differences as possible.  He noted if there is no resolution, they would move that item onto MPC for dispute resolution.  He proposed the questions dealing with nodal development be added to the August 9 joint meeting because City of Springfield hadn’t had a chance to take a position as a group.  Schwetz discussed with each of the bodies the proposed framework for the use of alternative measures and the proposal is attached as Attachment 8.

 

Schwetz reported that the Transportation Planning Rule was amended to allow the use of alternative measures in demonstrating compliance with the TPR.  He described the alternative plan concept that would have met the VMT/per capita target if the 5% reduction in vehicle miles traveled per capita (VTM/capita) could not be achieved.  Schwetz reviewed a previous alternative that was modeled in an attempt to meet the VTM target “TPR Compliance Scenario.”  He said for land use strategy, they looked at nodal development only on major transit corridors, but in those nodes, they used higher than current Metro Plan densities.  He said they shifted portions of the projected single family dwellings units’ demand to multi-family units to increase the affects of density.  He added they restricted development to those areas that currently have urban services.  He said with the system management side, they only used the existing and committed projects in the road network.  He added the demand management strategies included tripling of the parking fees in the downtown Eugene area.  He said they had expanded the paid parking area, reduced the transit fare to 25 cents, placed a bridge toll on all the Willamette River crossings of 50 cents and increased fuel prices by $1.00 per gallon.  He said for that, they achieved a 12% reduction in VMT per capita.   He explained they took that result, along with the other five alternative plan concepts, and put them together into a decision document.  He said they asked the planning commissions and adoption officials to look at the decision document and give staff direction as to what they wanted to see on the draft plan.  He noted it was at that point where the decision was made that there was not interest at the policy level in pursuing the measures that would be required to achieve that VMT reduction.  He added the plan was developed with another approach taken that used the strategies of nodal development, bus rapid transit and TDM.  He said given they are not showing a reduction in VMT (that meets the five percent target), staff has been pursuing the development of a strategy or framework using four measures to substitute for the VMT target.

 

Bob Cortright, Department of Land Conversation and Development, explained why LCDC adopted the requirement.  He noted it was a concern for the state’s metropolitan areas about a growing disconnect between the pattern of land use in urban areas and growing traffic congestion.  He said they adopted a broad and aggressive performance measure in reducing reliance on the automobile of ten percent vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction in 1991.  He noted in 1996 and 1997, the metropolitan areas convinced LCDC that there may be other ways of measuring whether or not MPO’s were reducing reliance on the automobile and the commission amended the rule in 1998 to allow MPO’s to come forward and offer other ways of accomplishing reduced reliance.  He noted the process provided is for the metropolitan decision makers and staff to explain why the measure that is being proposed in place of VMT accomplishes reduced reliance.   He said what needs to be determined is why achieving the measures that staff is recommending in use of other modes (in transit services hours per capita and in bikeway miles), represents significant reduction on reliance of the automobile.  He noted in TransPlan, what causes the reduction in the reliance of the automobile are the implementation of the nodal development strategy and implementation of bus rapid transit.

 

Cortright explained they are looking for a proposal that would come forward from the MPO to their commission that includes an explanation of why the jurisdictions think the measure proposed represents a significant reduction reliance in the automobile.

 

Sorenson noted the way TransPlan is currently written, there is not a significant reduction in the use of the automobile.  He asked what the consequence would be of a failure of the jurisdictions in addressing that.

 

Cortright explained it is a significant reduction in the reliance on the automobile, as opposed to use.  He said they want to create an urban environment that gives people more choices. He said if it is impossible to meet the test that had been set, the commission indicated talking about reasonable ways to accomplish the goal.

 

Kelly stated the model that complied with the TPR which was rejected by the adopting officials’ four years ago was a model based on a ten percent reduction.  He said he wasn’t sure the elected officials had seen a model based on a five percent reduction.

 

Schwetz reported they hadn’t explored formally a scenario that would achieve a five-percent reduction in VMT.  He noted they had done sensitivity analysis and measures could have been toned done.

 

Kelly commented when he looked at the proposed alternative performance measures, they didn’t capture the nodal development and BRT.  He asked if these proposed measures didn’t establish the connection.

 

Cortright responded that there would be other performance measures that would more directly represent the strategy or the plan that is being proposed.

 

Dwyer said what concerns him is all the things that would be required to be implemented.  He said new roads would be built at great expense that would impact the taxpayer for which the source is not yet known.  He asked what could be done as a community to resolve that conflict.

 

Cortright responded that there is a concern about the amount of money that is available to build the transportation system that the land use plans need.  He noted there is a growing gap between what land use plans call for in terms of transportation and what can be afforded to be built.

 

Bobby Lee, Eugene City Councilor, stated he was confused on the VMT issue because it is difficult to measure.  He mentioned an issue that was brought up that dealt with pricing and it was determined the pricing issue was not the best tool because Eugene is not faced with the same issues as larger cities with higher transportation problems.  He said a challenge is explaining to the public how hard it is not meeting the five or ten percent option and still making the community a better place.

 

Torrey asked what other MPO’s, if any, have come close to the five percent, and what will happen if after they do their best work, they are not able to achieve it.  He asked what the consequence would be.

 

Cortright noted there was an amendment to the rule in 1998 stating MPO’s could propose alternate measures and that is where they are now.  He added none would go for the five percent option because they won’t be able to achieve it.  He noted in Portland there was a one percent increase in VMT and in Eugene it is minus 0.2 percent.  He said that everyone had opted to propose alternate measures.  The commission is supportive of development in urban areas.

 

Cortright added if VMT is not achieved, the commission would have enforcement authority limiting land use approvals within the urban area.  He noted the commission had been reluctant to do that in an urban setting, encouraging good development.

 

Gary Rayor, Eugene City Councilor, asked what the five percent measure would be.

 

Schwetz responded a policy choice to use more restrictive land use measures.  He said they increased the densities beyond the Metro Plan densities and restricted development to those areas that currently have urban services.  He added increases in parking fees, expanding the paid parking area and reducing transit fares has little effect.  He noted the greatest impact on VMT is either a gas tax or bridge toll.

 

Lyle Hatfield, Springfield City Councilor, stated the most important part of TransPlan has to do with residential land use.  He said when he was a planning commission chair, they looked at those issues and asked staff to focus on the alternative standards since no other MPO in the state would come close to five percent.  He added they wanted to focus on alternative measures.

 

Scott Meisner, Eugene City Councilor, said a challenge at this point is that they have a plan premised on elected officials’ recommendations in 1996.  He noted they have spent seven years and have not as yet adopted a new land use code.  He asked what the implications would be for the City of Eugene.

 

Cortright said it is the nodal development strategy and the implementation.  He said that nodal development is giving most of the benefits in achieving reduced reliance.  He noted they are interested in having that concept as it is laid out in the plan.  He added they wanted to put changes in the comprehensive plan designation and zoning so there is mixed-use pedestrian friendly development allowed in those areas appropriate for nodal development.  He noted under the TPR there is three years to put in place the detailed plans to make it happen.

 

Meisner asked if they will have to submit to the commission in two to three years for analysis and implementation of this, or are they looking at it at this time.

 

Cortright said the code provisions are how nodes would be implemented.  He said they review as a post acknowledgment plan amendment and have recommended detailed comments on that.  He said they were interested in getting the designation in place and applied.

 

Jan Childs, City of Eugene, noted that was the direction they had received.  She added they had received supportive written testimony from the DLCD staff on the nodal development overlay zone as part of the land use code update.  She said what the department and commission is concerned about is a commitment to implement, making the plan designation changes and the rezoning within the three-year period of time.  She noted a draft policy under nodal development specified a commitment, and the direction from the department was that that commitment needed to be for implementation within a one-year period of time and that had changed to three years due to a change in requirements.

 

Nancy Nathanson, Eugene City Councilor, asked if they are trying to demonstrate the good faith efforts or results.  She asked if there is a small increase or reduction, how it compares with things ten years ago and if the increase in VMT is now less than what it was in the '80s.

 

Cortright reported the VMT target started as a performance measure for the metropolitan areas.  He added it was intended to provide flexibility.  He stated if the MPO’s are making a good faith effort or if every reasonable thing is being done, that the land conservation and development commission could expect to reduce reliance in the automobile.  He stated if they are and VMT increases, then the jurisdictions should be satisfied and that is what the Commission is prepared to take.

 

Dwyer stated he had concerns about nodal development not working.  He added people will not all work where they live.  He asked what the test would be whether a node works or not.

 

Cortright responded if development patterns are more mixed uses (putting residences closer to shopping), that there is an affect on trips and people will start making fewer and shorter automobile trips, reducing them in a measurable way.  He stated if the jurisdictions are doing every reasonable thing and there is not as much of an effect, the Commission will give them credit for that.

 

Weathers asked about the memo dated May 26 for alternative measures needing to be approved by LCDC using a process that is yet to be formally established.  She said as an elected official, she is frustrated not knowing what is expected.

 

Cortright said the Administrative Rule includes the criteria by which the commission reviews and approves an alternative measure, relating why it is a significant reduction in reliance with the automobile.  He said it is open to either being part of the plan, being presented before the plan is adopted or reviewed as part of periodic review.  He said the MPO has a variety of ways to come to the commission to ask for an approval of an alternate measure.  He noted an action the commission would take would be an order, rather than a contested case.  He said there would be a review, a staff report and their staff would prepare findings and an order for the commission.  He added there would be a hearing and an opportunity for public comment and the commission would vote and the order would be issued or denied.

 

Pat Farr, Eugene City Councilor, stated there is a tremendous amount of pressure to drive vehicles greater distances because of policies that are set into place.  He commented that many people live in outlying communities and have to work in Eugene because housing in Eugene/Springfield is not affordable.  He said that slowing the growth curve of VMT is an accomplishment.  He added that shooting for a five percent reduction is a pipe dream until policies are put into place that allow people to live closer to where they work.

 

Cortright reported that a change that was made in 1998 was the way VMT was being counted.  He added those trips are no longer being counted that are outside the metropolitan area

 

Sorenson stated TransPlan requires more roads to be built that produce more VMT.   He noted it was a struggle between effort and achievement.  He said by taking the commuters outside the metro area, the roads are built and nothing is done about the revenue.  He asked how that would be a reduction in the reliance of the automobile.

 

Cortright stated there were no perfect measures of reducing reliance in the automobile.  He said they are talking about another measure of reduced reliance.  He added any efforts they use have imperfections.

 

Gary Pape, Eugene City Councilor, stated VMT is a means to an end.

 

Cortright noted coming from his commission’s perspective, the fundamental issue is the pattern of land use and the affects on the livability of urban areas and the livability of the state.  He added there was a disconnect that got further apart between what plans called for and what was afforded to be built for livability.  He noted a tax burden was one, as well as impacts on air quality and energy consumption.  He stated what should be thought about is how urban areas are developed to help achieve the other objectives: air quality and reducing greenhouse gasses.  He said strategy is intending to be supportive of that.

 

Kelly announced a lot of the information was new.  He said he would be happier to see alternate measures that got at what DLCD was interested in.  He said he was not prepared to support the two travel response measures in the document as they are insignificant.

 

Carlson reported that on August 9 the joint elected officials will meet again, and tonight they were looking for:  "Should staff pursue alternative performance measures as opposed to trying to meet the VMT per capita reduction goal?"  Carlson noted two options to the metropolitan area: trying to meet the VMT per capita goal of five percent reduction, or using a set of alternative measures.

 

Weathers noted it was to reaffirm the direction that everyone is already heading: toward supporting alternative measures.

 

Carlson announced the results of the first election policy for the question under discussion: 78% of the Eugene City Council supported it; two people from Lane County supported it.  (Two approved).  He said the majority of the groups, with the exception of Lane County, think there should be a set of alternative performance measures.

 

Carlson continued the electronic polling.  He asked: " In general, are the proposed alternative performance measures acceptable:

 

1) Reduce drive alone mode share by five percent."

 

Carlson announced that Lane County supported the measure but would like to change the target; LTD and Springfield supported the measure and the target; and the City of Eugene didn’t know what to do.

 

2) "To increase percent of non-auto trips over current level by ten percent."

 

Carlson said there was consensus from all jurisdictions that it was a good measure and a reasonable target.

 

3) "Increase transit service hours per capita by 50%."

 

Carlson said that LTD supported it but wanted to change the target; and Lane County had a tie.  He noted LTD had discussed a different measure.

 

Rob Bennett, LTD Board, said staff review stated, under alternative performance measures, the transit measures suggested a 50% increase in transit service per capita.  He added a number on the board believe there are better measures and increases in vehicle running speed (as would occur under the BRT system) would increase service to the customer without increasing service hours.  He added the proposed measure would not track changes in travel behavior, only the relative availability of transit as a travel option.  He proposed thinking about different measures, including a transit modal split along the proposed BRT corridors.  He noted the goal could be a 50% increase in transit mode split along the corridors along the 20-year life of the plan.  He added this alternative would directly measure transit use and is tied directly to implementation of the BRT system.  He said the goal could be to decrease transit travel time by ten percent, relative to auto travel time over the 20-year life of the plan.  He added it could be households with access to ten-minute peak hour transit service.  He said this measure is preferable to transit service hours per capita and provides a link with nodal development and other land use strategies.  He noted they had not had time to discuss these options on a formal basis.  He requested a different type of performance alternative that would take place on August 9. 

 

4) "Increase Bikeway miles by 50%."

 

Carlson said it is a supply side measure, attempting to measure the reduced reliance on the auto.

 

Carlson reported that everyone appeared to support the measure and there is some interest in changing the target on both the part of LTD and Springfield; and the County was split.

 

Carlson asked the elected officials if there were others that identified a particular performance measure that would like to be proposed so staff could be working on it, bringing it back for the next meeting.

 

Rayor asked what the affect would be of free bus service being offset by spending in other parts of the transportation system.

 

Dwyer stated that BRT won’t make it as there are problems with people working different shifts.  He added there have been many things that had not been addressed by Lane Transit in regards to this program. He said if people are to be taken out of their cars, they have to get to and from wherever they are going at all times of the day and night.  He said he has concerns about these problems not being addressed.

 

Rayor said he miss-voted as he was in the support category, but would support change target upwards.  He said he was disappointed there wasn’t a slide in-between each one to change the target up or down.

 

Carlson said it was meant to be an initial discussion; it wasn’t meant to make final decisions.  He added that everyone will have to agree to what the alternative measures will be as they are not individual jurisdictional measures.

 

Weathers reported that Attachment 2 is a consensus item that had already been agreed upon through the individual work sessions.

 

Weathers reported that Attachment 3 is non-policy text changes and Attachment 4 contains single agency issues.

 

Carlson reported the first issue on Attachment 3 is a request by Eugene and Lane County to come up with a new name for nodes and staff is working on that.  He noted the reason it is discussed here was because Springfield did not discuss it.  He said the question is: "Do we try to find a new name for nodes for the public to understand it better?" 

 

Carlson stated the second issue is that Eugene, Lane County and Springfield all agreed on no change to the policy, but supported a modification to the definition of "intent".  He added it is a question of whether LTD is willing to go along with that.

 

Carlson said the third issue is a request from Eugene to add categories to the TransPlan project list to make it consistent with their CIP.  He noted that Springfield asked for this under the project listing.  He added there is a series of categories that Eugene asked for.

 

Carlson said with regard to the fourth issue, Eugene suggested adding a couple of examples: neighborhood shuttles and free or reduced fares in programs that are being proposed by LTD.

 

Carlson stated for the fifth issue on the bicycle policy: adding language that refers to Eugene’s method of public involvement.  He said he understood that it was to be applied to Eugene’s projects, not to all projects in TransPlan and there was a public involvement process on that.

 

Carlson said for the sixth issue: amending the policy definition/intent Eugene suggested a change but the other jurisdictions didn’t consider it.  He noted the only change was in the policy definition/intent to add the word "major" in front of capacity to make it consistent with the goal statement.

 

Carlson said with the seventh issue: to replace the reference to the Transportation Utility Fee with another term called "locally controlled source of revenue" as a strategy for funding local operation maintenance and preservation.  He noted it is done in different ways by jurisdiction.  He said the Springfield language was different than Eugene, talking about all users rather than users that only applies to Springfield.

 

Bennett said that LTD requested a change in the language in the transit policy: the examples requested by the Eugene City Council.

 

Carlson said Issue 4 from the attachment was pulled from consent consideration.  The groups were polled on acceptance of Attachment 3 (without issue 4).

 

Dwyer wanted to know what the sources of revenue would be.

 

Carlson stated that Lane County voted not to accept.  He asked Lane County which item they were opposed to.

 

Dwyer and Sorenson stated they were opposed to number seven.

 

Carlson removed number seven and stated the jurisdictions would be polled on the Attachment 3 package, not including numbers seven and four.

 

Carlson reported that all agencies agreed and approved Attachment 3, not including items four and seven.

 

Moving to Attachment 4, Carlson noted these were single agency issues:  deleting a project at Stuart Road in Eugene; adding a bike path project in Eugene from Terry Street to the Amazon Parkway; and a series of projects from both Eugene and Springfield.  He added Eugene asked to keep the bike lanes on 11th and 13th; extending the I-5 bike project under Beltline Road to connect to Chad Drive.  He said there is a Springfield and Eugene project to extend the urban standard part of the project across the overpass at Glenwood Boulevard and a project that was asked to be added, going from the new Meadowview School to the Fern Ridge connector in the City of Eugene.

 

Kelly asked about number three in the Springfield category:  What is the addition of Beltline Road, and Gateway to Game Farm addition?

 

Carlson responded that was as a result of changing the definition of the I-5/Beltline project.  He added it was an urban standards project.

 

Kelly did not recall item 2, the Terry Street project, being moved from the future to the 20-year list.

 

Carlson replied that the number 484 is not correct, it is a bike connector from Terry Street to the Amazon Creek Trail that will be built as part of the Corps of Engineers' 1135 bike project.

 

Dwyer suggested adding a way for people getting from South Eugene to Springfield without going through a highway.

 

Carlson responded that there is a bike bridge project from the I-5 path to Gateway.

 

Rayor asked for clarification of Option 1 in number four.

 

Carlson stated they were the bike lanes on 11th and 13th.

 

Childs recalled that Option 1 was to keep the proposed bicycle land projects on 11th and 13th in TransPlan as listed.

 

The jurisdictions were polled on Attachment 4 as is.  The description discusses working with residents on project design, as laid out in the arterial/collector plan.

 

During the polling, Betty Taylor, Eugene City Councilor, requested pulling Issue 4, Attachment 4.

 

Carlson asked if there was consensus of the audience to approve the rest of them.

 

Carlson stated that Lane County voted 3-1.

 

Torrey requested another vote with item 4 pulled off.

 

Weathers stated there will be another vote with Attachment 4 and item number four pulled.

 

Carlson stated that majority passes for all groups.  He added each jurisdiction could vote on five items from the first list (Attachment 3 without Issue 4) and six items from the second list (Attachment 4 without Item 4).

 

MOTION: City of Springfield moved to approve five items from the first list and six items from the second list.

 

Ballew MOVED, Hatfield SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 6-0.

 

MOTION: City of Eugene moved to ratify the polling votes on the non-policy text changes excluding four and seven and the single agency issues.

 

Lee MOVED, Taylor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 8-0.

 

MOTION: Lane County Board of Commissioners moved to accept Attachment 4, single agency issues with exclusion of item number four.

 

Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

Green asked why Lane County was voting on these items because at least three of the items had not yet been discussed.  They would have to come back to the Board.

 

Dwyer had concerns about voting without the Board having their discussion.  He felt he was being forced to a conclusion.

 

Sorenson stated the reason he was a no vote in the prior issues was because Lane County had not had the discussions. 

 

VOTE: 2-2 (Sorenson and Dwyer dissenting). Motion fails.

 

Weathers stated that means that Lane County will be able to have that discussion.  She noted what was intended when they had their pre-meeting with Sorenson and Torrey was to set this up as a potential to move things forward where there was agreement, so there could be substantive discussions as a group, and only make motions on things that have been discussed and could reach consensus on.  She added there was no attempt to use technology to railroad anyone voting for something they were not comfortable with.

 

MOTION: LTD moved to adopt Attachment 3 and 4.

 

Kleger MOVED, Bennett SECONDED.

 

VOTE:  5-0.

 

Morrison requested that Amendment 3, Issue 6, be pulled.  She noted when she read the part about state and federal revenues, it brought back into question what federal revenues were being discussed.  The Lane County Board of Commissioners did not move to adopt Attachment 3, with Issues 4, 6, 7 pulled.

 

Torrey stated that the County had not been able to come to an agreement with the other three jurisdictions’ positions on these issues.  He explained that it required an agreement of all the jurisdictions.  He added if Lane County couldn’t agree with the other jurisdictions, that there would be a dispute resolution.  He noted the issues would be brought back to the original bodies if there are changes.

 

Weathers stated they would be voting on Attachment 4, number four.

 

Taylor stated the reason she pulled this was because she was concerned about the neighborhood objections and the effect of putting in bike lanes on 13th Avenue and losing their parking.

 

Meisner reiterated that the plan is not to remove all parking and bike lanes; the concern of the neighborhood was do a bike lane and save parking.  He added it is a staff commitment and that is why he supports it.

 

Kelly stated he was comfortable because of the way it was adopted in the individual work sessions.  He added there was language that was passed that indicated the citizen involvement plan in the arterial and collector street plan would be applied with all the bike projects.  He noted it is a green light to start the citizen involvement plan.

 

Sorenson stated that on Attachment 4, there is a listing that Lane County has not discussed the first three and the bottom four, there is no indication of what has happened.

 

Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, recalled the Board did discuss the last four items briefly.  He described them as City of Eugene issues and recommended allowing the city to proceed with those.  He noted that number six was different, that Glenwood doesn’t involve both Springfield and Lane County.  He recommended that that project be added to the plan.  He said with regard to number three, none of the projects involved County funding so the County did not discuss them.

 

MOTION:  City of Springfield moved to approve Attachment 4, number four.

 

Ballew MOVED, Hatfield SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 6-0.

 

MOTION: City of Eugene moved to approve Attachment 4, Item 4.

 

Lee MOVED, Taylor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 8-0.

 

MOTION:  Lane County moved to approve Attachment 4, Item 4.

 

Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

MOTION: LTD moved to approve Attachment 4, Item 4.

 

Bennett MOVED, Kleger SECONDED.

 

VOTE:  5-0. 

 

A short break was taken.

 

Carlson recalled that on Attachment 3, number four, expanding the policy definition and intent statement will include reference examples of transit improvements.  He noted that Eugene suggested the change and Rob Bennett, LTD, asked that it be considered individually.

 

Bennett suggested using the language "explore transit fare alternatives that increase ridership."  He said since there is no consensus as to which kinds of reduction in fares is productive, it would be helpful for them to have flexibility with the language.

 

Kelly explained that he had suggested the examples to give meat to the policy, but they were not intended to be prescriptive. He supported LTD’s suggested change in the language.

 

Weathers indicated they would be taking motions from the jurisdictions to move approval of Attachment 3, Item 4, with the change proposed by Rob Bennett, LTD.

 

MOTION: City of Springfield moved to approve Attachment 3, item four, with amendments as proposed by LTD.

 

Ballew MOVED, Hatfield, SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 6-0.

 

MOTION:  City of Eugene moved to approve Attachment 3, item four, with changes consistent to LTD’s wishes.

 

Lee MOVED, Taylor SECONDED.

 

VOTE:  6-1 (Rayor dissenting). Councilman Farr was not in attendance.

 

MOTION: Lane County Board of Commissioners moved to approve Attachment 3, item four with changes.

 

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

Dwyer stated he would not support it, that it needed to be more definitive.

 

VOTE: 3-1 (Dwyer dissenting).

 

MOTION: LTD moved to approve item four of Attachment 3 with the language to explore transit fare alternatives that increase ridership.

 

Kleger MOVED, Kortage SECONDED.

 

VOTE:   5-0.

 

Carlson noted Attachment 3, item seven was pulled.

 

Dwyer stated he was reluctant to approve something that may impact the public. He said the TUF’s took different forms including taxes on electric bills.  He said these taxes were regressive.  He did not want to take a broad-brush approach to approving something that he doesn’t know how it will be paid for.

 

Kelly noted that he objected to the TUF as it was originally proposed but this particular vote is a positive change because it is striking the reference to the TUF, making it a more general reference to a locally controlled source of revenue.

 

Pape asked what Option 2 was.

 

Childs responded that Option 2 makes the following changes to text: description related to funding of operations, maintenance and preservation.  She noted the Eugene language would read "Increase revenues through the development of" strike Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) and insert "a locally controlled source of revenue equitably tied to the users of the transportation system that would provide revenues that could be used to address OM & P needs.  She added the revenue source could theoretically be formulated to fully fund the shortfall and strike the sentence: "The Eugene City Council has already taken the step of approving the concept of a TUF."

 

Weathers noted the language is in the Springfield box and the only change that Springfield recommended was striking the word "the" users and inserting "all" users.

 

Sorenson stated he doesn’t understand what is being proposed.  He viewed the term "local source of revenue" as confusing.  He said it is a way of saying taxes when there is little unanimity among the jurisdictions on what this would be.

 

Carlson stated the policy was not in question, it was approved by all jurisdictions.  He said it was a description of how the policy would be implemented.

 

Schwetz commented that it is not policy definition/intent language, it is in the financial constraint part of Chapter 3.  He added it is geared toward addressing the operations, maintenance and preservation shortfalls of the cities of Eugene and Springfield.  He stated it does not affect the other adopting bodies.

 

Weathers asked how it relates to the section.

 

Schwetz stated it replaces reference to the TUF with the other term in that section only.  He said it is not related to any policy.  It is an option for addressing the financial constraint issue.

 

Taylor said they wanted to get rid of the TUF, that is a regressive tax.  She said they would be including another type of equitable source of reference.

 

Meisner agreed with Taylor.  He said they were looking for flexibility for the future and on the Eugene City Council, there was not a majority for the TUF as presented in a variety of forms.  He wanted to work on that as local jurisdictions.

 

Rayor said the idea that Eugene City Council conceptually approving a TUF was not true.  He said he would not support the suggested change.

 

Green said he wanted to work for the text change but it didn’t mean that he supported the TUF.

 

Hatfield recalled that Springfield agreed with the change that Eugene had proposed (delete the reference to a TUF) in favor of something that is more flexible.  He added it leaves flexibility to the local jurisdictions.  He said that no elected official would ever agree on a tax increase without some type of public process.  He noted that there is a gap in the funding of OM & P and the local jurisdictions would locate ways that are equitable and fair to address it.  He said for that reason he supports it.  It does not commit the agencies to any particular action.

 

Pape asked why this issue needed to be put in the plan.

 

Carlson responded that where it is in the financial constraint plan is in the recognition that the two cities do not have enough resources to pay for operation, maintenance and preservation.  He said there had to be a strategy in the financially constrained plan on meeting that need.  He stated Lane County has adequate resources for operation, maintenance and preservation but the two cities do not under the analysis.  He noted the way the plan proposes to meet that need is to lower standards and to find a local source of revenue.  He added if the jurisdictions chose not to look for a local source of revenue, then they would have to agree to lower the standards for OMP any further.

 

Kelly recalled that the Eugene City Council last month debated the language and adopted it unanimously.  He recalled that the gap is about $170 million and needs to be dealt with by this language or removing other things.

 

Sorenson stated the document needs to be achievable.  He said that the direction toward achievement should be followed.  He said there is no locally identified source of money.  He disagreed with Carlson’s view of having to reduce operation and maintenance.  He suggested reducing construction of capital projects.  He said maintenance doesn’t have to be reduced.

 

Dwyer agreed with Sorenson’s comments.  He stated he wanted to deal with reality.

 

Torrey commented that the City of Eugene couldn’t deal with its maintenance needs given its current revenue sources.  He noted at some point (without new construction) they will need to come up with a source of revenue.  He said all it does is to give them the opportunity to do that as a local community, when the time comes.  He added at some point in the future, they will have to deal with the question of shortfall and revenue and this part does not state what type of revenue generation it would be.  He said it just gives the right to locally develop that revenue source.

 

Carlson reported that the City of Eugene unanimously approved the language and Springfield also approved the language.  He noted that it affects the two cities because it is the two cities that have the operations, maintenance and preservation problem.  He added there will need to be agreement as to the language.  He recommended moving this item.

 

Rayor noted the last line of City of Springfield’s (which was not in the Eugene block) says "This revenue could theoretically be formulated to fully fund the gap."  He stated if those words were stricken, to allow a full funding of the gap, he would be for it.

 

Taylor asked if the TUF could be taken out.

 

Weathers stated it was a reference to the TUF and it was not something that could be done because it is a policy statement.  She noted they were referencing a local source of revenue and making it more broad. 

 

Taylor responded the purpose was not to make it broader, but to get rid of the TUF.

 

Weathers reiterated that this change means to replace TUF with the words "locally controlled source of revenue."

 

Torrey requested electronic polling on #7 as proposed for change (Springfield version).

 

Weathers stated they would be voting on number seven with the language that was read by Jan Childs and presented with a change by Springfield with the word "all" versus "the," voting acceptable or non-acceptable.

 

Carlson reported that Lane County was a 2-2 vote by electronic polling.  The other agencies supported by majority.

 

Weathers reported that LTD had lost its quorum at 8:45 p.m.

 

MOTION: City of Springfield moved to support Attachment 3, item seven, with the language shown under the Springfield column.  Ballew MOVED, Hatfield SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 6-0.

 

MOTION:  City of Eugene moved to accept the descriptive language shown under the Springfield column.

 

Lee MOVED, Taylor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 6-1 (Rayor dissenting), Farr absent and excused.

 

MOTION:  Lane County Board of Commissioners moved to use the language in the far right hand box under Springfield, discussing a local revenue source versus a TUF.

 

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

Sorenson stated he will be a no vote because he is against the idea of being vague about something that is significant.

 

VOTE: 2-2 (Sorenson and Dwyer dissenting). Motion failed.

 

Weathers reiterated what was accomplished:  approving the Attachment 3 consent items; approving Attachment 4 with differences, Attachment 3, the non-policy text changes; items one, two, three, five and six were approved by Springfield, Eugene and LTD and opposed by the County.  She said Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and LTD approved Attachment 3, item four, modified.  She said that item seven was approved by Springfield, Eugene and opposed by the County.  (LTD had no quorum.)  She added they did not take up the County’s issue of item six being pulled by Morrison.

 

Lane County approved only Attachment 4, Item 4.

 

Weathers reported for the next meeting, they will be discussing Attachment 5, moderate differences and Attachment 6, major differences.

 

MOTION: Lane County Board of Commissioners moved to set a 13th reading and deliberation of Ordinance PA 1132 for August 9, 2000.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

Weathers noted that the next Joint Work Session has been scheduled for August 9, 2000 at the Doubletree Hotel.

 

There being no further business, Mayor Weathers adjourned the Springfield City Council at 9:00 p.m.

 

There being no further business, Mayor Torrey adjourned the Eugene City Council at 9:00 p.m.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson adjourned the Board of Commissioners meeting at 9:00 p.m.

 

There being no further business, Hilary Wylie adjourned the LTD board at 9:00 p.m.

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary

 

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices