Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. B~ttm.an felt the inclusion of the policies regarding street preservation indicated somc progress had <br />been mad(~. She opined that the Game Farm Road pr~ject diverted from the City's odginaI intent on how <br />it would be funded. She observed that the bulk of the project was outside ofthe dty limits, Mr. <br />Schoening clarified that the bulk of the pn:tject was within Eugene city lhnits. <br />Ms. Bdtman recalled that ::;ome funding was slated to come from the City of Springfield and the County. <br />Mr. Schmming explained that the City anticipated securing tlmding from the County and/or Springfield. <br />He noted that the portion fmm the mid-line oflnterstate 5 was in th~ City of S.pringfkld. <br />Ms. Bettman asked if Springfield was not paying for its portion. Mr. Schoening resjXmded that the City of <br />Eugene c.ould ask that Springt1eld pay, but all entities in the metropolitan area worke.d together in the <br />regional pm<:~ss that regarded Surface 'fmnsportation Pr(}gram-Urban (STP-V) funding. <br />Ms. f:kt.tman ohserved that $225.00Q was originally slated to come from Lime County Road Funds and <br />$125,000 in assessments had been reducd to $42,000. S!:w dedared the pr~ie<:t to be inconsistent with <br />tk City's policies because it was a capacity upgrade and because it ,vould not be built to the City's <br />standards. <br />Mr, Schoening explaine.d that the northern patt of the mad was <'lUtside the urban grO'Y\'th boundary (VGB} <br />He noted that it \-vould be similar to the way fklta Highway had been built between Green Acres Drive <br />and Ayres Road, as that tral1sport<ttion iitdlity had an urban section on the cast sid~ .and a rural section on <br />the west side. <br />M::;. Hettman reiterated her as::;ertkm that the project was inconsistent with City poHcy, She did not <br />believe the City should take u.p its ability to compete for money t'O build pfi...'.i~ts that were important to <br />the City of Eugene by building projects that were important to Lane County and Springfield, when the <br />County and Springt1dd w(:re not c;::mtribu.ting. She. objected to using the funding sources fbr this project, <br />calling it "misguided." <br />Regarding the planning money, MS- Bettman observed that It had been increased by $W5,OOO per ye.\r. <br />She questioned why there was such a "huge" jump in fhnding. Me Schc.'ening replied that it was a <br />difference between what was being asked for and what. the City was likely to fel.~dve. He underscored that <br />the City was asking for aU of the funds Ex \vhich it was eligible, but did n.ot ant.icipate receiving the fuB <br />amount He noted that the City received $125,000 fOf planning cach of the last thre.e years. H~ added that <br />Lane County, Lane Transit District (LTD), and Coburg had not asked fbr planning dollars during the .last <br />funding it(~ration. hut would be making dw request in the next round of tlmding, <br />Ms. ReHman remarked that it was difticuh to determllw if this 'proj(~ct was thl;:~ best one for the City when <br />it was the only one heing reviewed, <br />\\..tr. Poling asked how the Game Farm Road modernization project had been determined to be at. the top of <br />the priority list Mr. Schoening replied that the council adopted a capital budget with the pn..-tject in it, so <br />there was a ::;ense that ::;ome sort of prioritization. placed it th~re over other pf(~!ect,>, He said, based on the <br />existing scoring criteria, it was tHt that the project would Sl;::ore highly. <br />M.r. Poling a~ked if money allocated to moderniz.ation projects could be reaHocated to preservation <br />projects. Mr. Schoening responded that it would take an actIon by the Metropolitan Policy Committee <br />(MPC) to make SHch a change. <br />M1NUTES.u---Eugen~ City Council August ! 0, 2005 Paoe 7 <br /> I:> <br />WOl;k Se5sion <br />