Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling thanked LTD staff for the public involvement process and agreed with Ms. Ortiz that the more options that were considered the better the outcome of the process would be. He would not be willing to eliminate an alternative until he had all of the information from the process. Ms. Bettman asked what the federal regulations required in terms of considering options. She asked if it thth would be permissible under the federal process to express a preference for the 6/7 avenues alignment and then focus on alternatives related to that alignment. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said he would need to research that question, but it was clear that the process needed to proceed with all the options. Ms. Bettman said it was a poor use of taxpayer money to consider options that did not have council or thth community support. She favored only considering options related to the 6/7 avenues alignment. She asked if each alternative would be subjected to all of the environmental disciplines listed in Attachment F in the agenda packet. Mr. Schwetz said detailed descriptions of each of the environmental disciplines would be used to conduct an impact analysis of each alternative alignment and a report summarizing those findings would be provided to the council. Leon Skiles, consultant, asserted that Attachment F defined the content of the EIS and each area would be addressed in the EIS for all of the alternatives. He said additionally the LTD adopted goals and objectives that would lead to evaluation criteria and measures that would be a subset of the information in the EIS. Ms. Piercy remarked that LTD was in charge of the process of vetting the range of alternatives and no one would know the outcome until the process was completed and could inform the final decision. She thought the public was very concerned with preserving bus services and also liked EmX, but worried that EmX might impact the other services LTD provided. She said the City was willing to help LTD find resources to provide regular and paratransit services along with EmX. Mr. Ruiz said the council’s October 13 work session would include a discussion of LTD funding and service issues. Ms. Bettman repeated her request for a legal memorandum regarding what was required to meet the federal requirements for analyzing alternative options. C. WORK SESSION: Funding Alternatives for City’s Share of Road Improvements for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street Mark Schoening, City engineer, presented alternatives for funding the City’s share of the implementation of the approved design for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street. He said the council had approved the recommended design in April 2008, with an estimated cost of $5.75 million, and in June 2008, adopted the FY09 budget, which included $2.6 million in the Special Assessment Capital Projects Fund to provide the interim financing for the assessable share of the project. He said the council also approved over $1 million in stormwater funds, which combined with the budget appropriation would cover the $1.5 million in non-assessable stormwater costs. Not included in the budget, he said, was the City’s share of road improvements at $1.65 million. Mr. Schoening reviewed the various options for funding the City’s share and said the recommended strategy was to use $700,000 from the Delayed Assessment Fund and $950,000 from the $4.5 million in Lane County Road Fund dollars the City received in exchange for General Fund dollars. He said the Lane County Road Fund was earmarked for pavement preservation and the Crest, Friendly and Storey improvements were MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 8, 2008 Page 4 Work Session