Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Hertman, seconded by Ms. 'faylof, moved to amend th~~ motion to remove Surface Transportation Program-Urban money from the Game Farm Road pn:~e;.;t Ms, Bettman averred that the amendment \vould not stop the pr~ject She noted that l}revio~!sly $125.000 in assessments had been identified and that amount had fallen to $42,000. She said the policy that dictated that people living adjacent to such improvements must he asse.ssed was "hard and fast" She sa\v no reason to reduce the aSi;essments. She reiterated that the pn~iect could go forward but would have to "revert to its original funding medul.nism.." She agreed with Me Kelly's assertion that this would nuke a statement that would HKltivate the ~fPC to allocate more prc::;ervation funding to the City ofEug~~ne. Mr, Pape a::;ked how subjective the criteria. were. iv.k Schoening responded that it would be disingenuous t-o say there was no di::;cussion betwet:m jurisdictions hut he would not characterize it as "hor::;e trading:' He felt this characterization overstated the discussion at the TPC and the MPC;. He underscored that as transportation dollars became "tighter" otherjurisdictions had their eyes on the planning money and other n.~sources and <:ompetltion became stltTl\tr. Pape surmised that there wa::; a large amount of su~iectivity put into the scoring ::;ystem. Ms. Solomon felt it would be irresp;,;:msible to not apply fbr modernization dollars, She averred that the prqject met the goal t-oimpn)ve transportation in the system and it would ultimately take some of the trank. demand from the Cohurg Road/Beltline.Higlr"v~ty interchange. She believed that the voters exp~~cte.d the City to coHaborate with its partners. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie~ Ms. Taylor,Ms, Reitman, My. Kelly, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes, ~md M" Papt\ Mr. Poling, M.s. Solomon, and IVlr. Pryor voting in opposi~ tkm. Mayor Piercy voted against the Mrendm.ent and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. In re::;ponse to a question from [\,{L Papt\ Mr. Schoening explained that he had looked at the unified planning work program and how much ::;taff resource the City (d' Eugene used tDlmplement its portion of it. Then he looked at the scnrl!rg criteria which allocated points for matching up to a 50 percent match. He stated what was requested wa::; 50 percent of what the City of EugeH(~ w,ed to implement the unified planning work program, assuming that the City would put in a 50 percent match from the Road Fund to gain the maxilnurn Hum.ber ofpoinh. He added that the larger problem was that 20 per<:ent of$10.5 milhon did not cover everyone's planning needs in the region, M" Pape asked how the money was allocated, assuming $720,000 per year went int{) planning.Mr, Schoening replied that it W~tS allocated hy the MPC on a recommendation from the 'fPC using the criteria established for all of the categories. Mr. KeHy indicated he would oppose. the main motion, He averred that failure oCthe amendment ran counter to the sort of discu::;:"ion the City Council had in the past on strat(~gies to increase ro~td preserva~ tion funding. Mr. Pape appreciated the amendment butremaine<.l concerned that this body had staff working on this Game Farm Road project He felt that reversing it .and putting ".asunder" an of the planning and wurk (kme by staff at the council's previous direction was not prudent. Ms. HeUman opined that using STP-U money for this projC{:t was a ."drastic reversal of comse." MINlrfES---Eugene City C:ouncH August 10, 2{l05 Page 10 \V ork Session ..~...................................._.._-_._..__._......................._-_._----.-........ ............................----.----...................... ..