Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Schoening noted that in the future, the process would involve the recently formed MPO Citizen Advisory Committee. He reported there was no time in the current process to change the criteria for how projects were scored; the last time projects were scored the City's street preservation projects scored low because they had a single purpose and the current criteria were from TransPlan and were related to alternate modes. Bicycle preservation projects scored much higher. In the next funding cycle, the Eugene staff on the TPC would work to influence the criteria so street preservation projects would score higher. Mayor Piercy called for a first round of cormnents and questions. Ms. Bettman questioned why there was no time to change the criteria given that she recalled the council directed staff to seek changes in the criteria in January. Mr. Schoening recalled that at that time, the council gave staff direction on the allocation split between funding categories. The MPC had adopted a motion at its May meeting that gave the preservation category 60 percent of the funding, combined the modernization and planning and project development categories and allocated 30 percent of the funding to that category, and allocated 10 percent of available funding to transportation demand management. Ms. Bettman did not believe that was consistent with the direction the council gave to staff and its MPC delegates. She maintained the council wanted criteria that allowed Eugene to utilize flexible transporta- tion funding for preservation. The matrix employed by the MPC was a self-imposed set of criteria that she believed could be dispensed with entirely. She said funding decisions were made by the TPC, which was a staff committee from all three jurisdictions. She maintained that the TPC could make its decisions on the basis of adopted Eugene council policy, which was for funding of preservation projects. Ms. Bettman appreciated the inclusion of the changes to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) policies. Ms. Bettman said that when the council adopted the list, it was not just giving the nod to those projects, but it was also "okaying" an exception to its priorities to fund preservation projects first with any eligible money. She asked about the source of funding for the courthouse improvements in the CIP. Mr. Schoening said the funding was identified as all-federal funding except for a local match, which was to come from the County. Ms. Bettman said the council would also be making a policy exception by changing the funding source for the courthouse project. She believed those policies should have been addressed in the AIS. Ms. Bettman objected to using STP-U moneys and urban renewal funds for the road improvements associated with the federal courthouse. She recalled that she was the only councilor who opposed the courthouse project because she believed it would cost the community "tens of millions" in transportation dollars to make the courthouse accessible. Mayor Piercy recalled that the council agreed it wanted the MPC to adhere to its funding priorities, and the council's MPC representatives pushed the issue as hard as it could to the MPC. City Manager Taylor added that staff had also attempted to make the council's case for greater flexibility to address pavement preservation at the MPC and had been unsuccessful in getting changes to the allocation formula. With regard to the courthouse project, City Manager Taylor said that when the City made its commitment to the General Services Administration (GSA) about project funding, the availability of federal funding had been uncertain. The council had agreed that if the federal funding was not received, it would use MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 8 Work Session