Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman asked for more specificity in the outcomes, such as ‘active and successful collaboration with <br />affected neighborhoods with transportation development, parks, and public safety issues’ and ‘higher long- <br />term residency and home ownership.’ She wished to see the phrase ‘less contentiousness around develop- <br />ment applications’ changed to ‘residents and neighborhoods support development applications.’ <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked staff to review a proposal written by Joseph Cunningham. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman remarked that minimization of conversions from residential uses to commercial uses had <br />remained unaddressed. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé commented that the CIC was intended to have a greater function than neighborhood associations. <br />He did not see that as a neighborhood goal. <br /> <br />Mr. Corey stated that the plan would be brought before the council for further consideration and adoption at <br />later dates. He felt neighborhood input would be appropriate when the plan was aligned more closely with <br />the council priorities. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy recognized Mr. Kelly for the last round of comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that staff send an email to the neighborhood leaders explaining this first step in the <br />process. <br /> <br /> <br />B. WORK SESSION: <br /> Programming of Surface Transportation Program-Urban Funds <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor stated that City Engineer Mark Schoening was present to review the project list for <br />funds to be programmed by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). <br /> <br />Mr. Schoening reviewed the information in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) regarding the Programming of <br />Surface Transportation Program-Urban Funds. He said the schedule had been complicated by the air <br />quality assessment and the work of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). He explained that Attachment <br />A Preservation and Modernization and Planning and Project Development Project List delineated the <br />projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoening stated that the modernization project on Game Farm Road had already been budgeted. He <br />explained that a change in the funding source required that it be brought back before the council. He said, if <br />successful, the federal funds would replace systems development charges (SDCs) and would fill the gap <br />where other funds had previously been identified, thought to come from Springfield and/or the County. He <br />noted that the project had been identified in part because of the synergy with the County’s project on Game <br />Farm Road, the City’s project to extend Chad Drive, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) <br />project to replace the bridges over Game Farm Road. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoening reviewed the preservation projects on the list. He explained that the transportation planning <br />activity continued the past practice of securing funds for such activities which he predicted would become <br />critical as the County had, in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Capital Plan, discontinued the City/County <br />partnership money, approximately $1 million. He stated that the list indicated the projects the City wanted <br />to submit applications for. He reported that the MPC would review the recommendations of the Transporta- <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />