Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tation System Plan (TSP). He felt the impact of it was that the federally required Regional Transportation Plan was being amended without any discussion or advisory votes by the individual elected governments. He disagreed with the assertion that what was being considered at the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) was a minor amendment. He said as he was reading through the material, he had difficulty understanding it, though he felt "close to the transportation process." He noted that a letter from an attorney had been submitted indicating concern that some of the federally required public involvement was not followed in this process. Additionally, he thought the City Council should have had more of an opportunity to review it. Mr. Kelly asked if any of the funding for the 3rd/4th Connector was flexible and able to be shifted to street preservation. Public Works Department Engineer Mark Schoening, explained that it was a project approved by the City Council with the adoption of the capital budget, funded with systems development charges (SDCs) and assessments. As such, he stated that it was dedicated funding. Mr. Kelly asked if any of the funding for the proposed Chad Drive extension project was flexible. Mr. Schoening replied that it was being funded with assessments, SDCs, and STIP-U funds that were allocated and approved by the MPC. Ms. Bettman interjected that it the STIP-U allocation was $900,000. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to drop the Chad Drive pro- ject from the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. Ms. Bettman indicated she would support the motion. She called it a "small piece of the iceberg." She asserted that there was $2,231,000 in STIP-U money that could all be legally used for maintenance and preservation. She said the council was on record as indicating that all flexible funding that came through the Metropolitan Policy Organization (MPO) and the MPC would be prioritized for maintenance and preservation. Mr. Pap6 asked who participated in putting the matrix together. Mr. Schoening explained that the MPO and the MPC allocated the federal funds that came to the region. He said the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) had put together a process and categories of funding that were reviewed and approved by the MPC. He stated that each jurisdiction competed and submitted projects and the projects were scored in a competitive process. He clarified that there were four categories of funding, such as modernization. He said the funds were already allocated and, should the council choose not to accept those funds, the funds would go back to the MPC to reallocate to the next modernization project in priority order and this would not necessarily be a Eugene project. In response to another question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Schoening stated that a project made it on the list as a result of careful review of available projects and the priority system and set forth the projects staff felt would score the highest in the competitive process. Ms. Nathanson said she had intended to ask what placed the project as a priority on the list but she now understood that the money was not Eugene's money and the area could just lose the funding. She felt unsure what the purpose of supporting the motion would be other than to say that the City of Eugene did not want any road improvements. Mr. Meisner indicated he would be unlikely to support the motion. He recalled that when the Transporta- tion System Maintenance Fee (TSMF) had been repealed, the council had clearly directed staff to work with the County on a more equitable way of sharing its Road Fund and, though it had not gone anywhere, the County had indicated it would be open to funding projects. He suggested the City be more aggressive and submit almost all of its needed preservation and maintenance projects to the County. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 8 Work Session