Laserfiche WebLink
measured ridership with automatic passenger counts and surveys. He explained that the transit demand <br />forecasting model utilized several pieces of software. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown noted that he had seen the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City and LTD for <br />the Franklin Boulevard project and wondered if there was one for this project. Mr. Schwetz responded that <br />the IGA had been put into place once the construction had been initiated. He was certain that LTD and the <br />City would enter into another IGA when construction began on the new project. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown advised them to do more outreach to stakeholders, especially in the affected area. He suggested <br />that councilors representing affected wards make contact with the area business owners. <br /> <br />Mr. Eyster noted that Mr. Pryor had done just that. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked how the delay would affect the funding. Mr. Schwetz replied that they had the ability to <br />submit a small starts application for funding in January. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling did not think people understood how funding from the FTA occurred. He asked if Mr. Schwetz <br />could provide a summary explanation of the process. He also suggested that the JLPAC members not be <br />those who overlapped, such as a councilor who was already a member of the MPC. He wanted to ensure <br />that there were “many sets of eyes” on the LPA. He added that he had been impressed by the amount of <br />outreach in which LTD had engaged. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka commented that he hoped that LTD and the council could have more joint meetings. He said it <br />was important to keep moving forward. He averred that this was as much about the service as it was about <br />the future. He predicted that the system would eventually become Eugene’s light rail and this was a good <br />way to prepare for this future. He felt it was a good idea to include the Metropolitan Policy Organization <br />Citizen Advisory Committee (MPOCAC) in the public input process. Regarding the JLPAC, he said all <br />three bodies would ultimately vote on the LPA and questioned the need to form a “subset” of the decision <br />makers. <br /> <br />Mr. Schwetz stated that the concept behind the JLPAC was to provide an opportunity to work through what <br />they had heard to date and to help summarize it for all three of the bodies. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked them to speak about the impact on the regular service the funding for the project might <br />have. Mr. Eyster responded that they were mostly unrelated, though it seemed related in the eyes of the <br />public. He said cuts would be inevitable and revenues were dropping with the economy, but the funding for <br />the EmX was not related to it except for a “tiny little bit.” He felt they were constantly challenged to weigh <br />“the future against the now.” He underscored that they should not dare to give up on the future to address <br />the present. He stated that as the EmX was built out the whole system would begin to look very different. <br /> <br />In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Eyster stated that currently the local contribution <br />to the EmX project amounted to seven percent of the cost. He added that LTD hoped to find ways to gain <br />100 percent funding for the project. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz felt that LTD had done a good job in its public outreach efforts but commented that she did not <br />know if it was “ever enough for our community.” She asked if they were modeling the public outreach work <br />on the proposed West Eugene route on the work they had done on a Coburg Road route. Mr. Schwetz <br />replied that they were trying to gain the breadth of representation that the Coburg Road process had <br />included. He reiterated that they welcomed suggestions for additional stakeholders to include. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 3 <br /> <br />