Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

urban renewal for the project. He said the motion would otherwise require 100 percent of urban renewal activity and staff believed it preferable to save that money and use federal funds for the project. Mr. Kelly said the City's MPC representatives had worked hard to change the allocation criteria and it "was clearly a nonstarter" in that venue. He said the STP-U funds were allocated through a three-year funding cycle, and the funds in question were additional funds above what was expected to be available in that time period. The City had received a commitment from the MPC for a review of the criteria prior to the next three-year cycle; that would occur later in the year. Mr. Kelly believed it would be easier to make a stand for the City's position for a new three-year cycle. He reiterated that the City had not received any support for its desire to change the criteria. Mr. Kelly recalled that none of the funding was allocated on a jurisdictional basis, and determined from Mr. Schoening that the TPC could recommend a different funding allocation to the MPC. Mr. Kelly said he supported the bicycle path system as one of the City's major amenities. Given that such projects would score higher than a street preservation project, he suggested the City postpone submitting its bicycle projects as a way of securing some of the STP-U money for the street preservation projects. Mr. Kelly asked about the reduction in the amount of federal funding for the project from $6 million to $5 million. Mr. Schoening said that the funding amount was adopted in the federal highway omnibus bill signed by the president, and what was secured was what was thought doable. Ms. Solomon supported the list and thought the funding for the courthouse project very reasonable given what would result. She expressed support for Mr. Kelly's suggestion to remove the bicycle path projects to get more street preservation funding. Mr. Schoening said in the past funding allocation process the City's bicycle path projects were above the cut line after being scored, and the preservation projects in question fell to the very bottom of the list for the entire region. It was not likely those projects would be funded if the bicycle projects were dropped. Ms. Solomon asked why the bicycle path projects were as expensive as the street projects. Mr. Schoening said the projects cost the same, but the bicycle path projects produced more mileage than the street preservation projects. Staff selected projects that would maximize the funding that came to Eugene. Mr. Poling asked what would happen if the City dropped the bicycle path projects. Mr. Schoening said the next projects on the regional project list would be funded. Mr. Poling asked if dropping the bicycle path projects would endanger the City's chances of securing preservation money for 18th Avenue and Hilyard Street. Mr. Schoening said yes, but it was unlikely that the projects would score high enough to get funding regardless of whether the bicycle project components were dropped. Mr. Poling noted for the benefit of the viewing audience that the City was leveraging $904,000 to secure a total of $1.78 million in STP-U money for street and bicycle preservation projects. He believed that was a wise use of public money. An additional $380,000 in STP-U was earmarked for road improvements around the courthouse, and he thought it would be wise to authorize the projects. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve the attached list of preservation and modernization projects for submittal of applications for federal Surface Transporta- tion Program-Urban funds to be reprogrammed by the Metropolitan Policy Committee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 9 Work Session