CC Minutes - 06/08/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 Transportation Program-Urban funds to be reprogrammed by the Metropolitan Policy Committee. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. Mr. Pap6 did not think Mr. Kelly's suggestion would result in the desired outcome. Mr. Schoening concurred. He said that it was likely a Lane Transit District preservation project would compete better than a City preservation project. Mr. Pap6 asked if the bicycle path projects enhanced or preserved the existing system. Mr. Schoening indicated both enhancement and preservation would occur; the path would be widened from an eight-foot asphalt path to a ten-foot concrete path. Mr. Pap~ asked what commitment the City made to the GSA with regard to the courthouse road improve- ments. City Manager Taylor recalled that the council agreed to construct the road improvements using urban renewal funds as a last resort if federal funding was not forthcoming. The omnibus bill passed by Congress made $5 million available, $1 million less than hoped, and the City was obligated to fill the gap. He believed it was better to compete for the STP-U funds than to use urban renewal dollars. He thought the City was likely to be successful. Ms. Bettman indicated opposition to the motion because ~the system was broken." Through adoption of the motion the council would be allocating money from urban renewal to road projects, and that was money the council had already diverted from schools or public safety. The road involved was a State highway that City taxpayers would be paying to relocate at the behest of the federal government. Ms. Bettman said the MPC process meant that Springfield and Lane County told Eugene how to spend its transportation dollars because the City had agreed to self-imposed ~artificial criteria." The City could not do what it wanted to do with money it was eligible for. She believed all the City had to do was state it would not participate in the decision-making process as long as the criteria matrix existed. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. She asked what would happen if the council eliminated the funding intended for the courthouse road improvement projects. Mr. Schoening said the City would not submit an application for the funds and would proceed with the use of urban renewal funds as the backfill funding mechanism. The other projects on the list would go forward. Ms. Taylor was horrified to hear people talk about the deletion of bicycle path projects given the City's commitment to alternative modes of transportation. She thought those the most important projects. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by eliminating the STP- U and urban renewal funding for the courthouse if possible. Mr. Kelly said although he was unsure of the amendment's intent, it essentially revisited a past council decision about using urban renewal as a funding backstop for the road improvements associated with the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 10 Work Session