CC Minutes - 08/10/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tion Planning Committee (TPC) on August 11; the application period began then and would end on August 22. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Bettman felt the inclusion of the policies regarding street preservation indicated some progress had been made. She opined that the Game Farm Road project diverted from the City’s original intent on how it would be funded. She observed that the bulk of the project was outside of the city limits. Mr. Schoening clarified that the bulk of the project was within Eugene city limits. Ms. Bettman recalled that some funding was slated to come from the City of Springfield and the County. Mr. Schoening explained that the City anticipated securing funding from the County and/or Springfield. He noted that the portion from the mid-line of Interstate 5 was in the City of Springfield. Ms. Bettman asked if Springfield was not paying for its portion. Mr. Schoening responded that the City of Eugene could ask that Springfield pay, but all entities in the metropolitan area worked together in the regional process that regarded Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funding. Ms. Bettman observed that $225,000 was originally slated to come from Lane County Road Funds and $125,000 in assessments had been reduced to $42,000. She declared the project to be inconsistent with the City’s policies because it was a capacity upgrade and because it would not be built to the City’s standards. Mr. Schoening explained that the northern part of the road was outside the urban growth boundary (UGB). He noted that it would be similar to the way Delta Highway had been built between Green Acres Drive and Ayres Road, as that transportation facility had an urban section on the east side and a rural section on the west side. Ms. Bettman reiterated her assertion that the project was inconsistent with City policy. She did not believe the City should take up its ability to compete for money to build projects that were important to the City of Eugene by building projects that were important to Lane County and Springfield, when the County and Springfield were not contributing. She objected to using the funding sources for this project, calling it “misguided.” Regarding the planning money, Ms. Bettman observed that it had been increased by $105,000 per year. She questioned why there was such a “huge” jump in funding. Mr. Schoening replied that it was a difference between what was being asked for and what the City was likely to receive. He underscored that the City was asking for all of the funds for which it was eligible, but did not anticipate receiving the full amount. He noted that the City received $125,000 for planning each of the last three years. He added that Lane County, Lane Transit District (LTD), and Coburg had not asked for planning dollars during the last funding iteration, but would be making that request in the next round of funding. Ms. Bettman remarked that it was difficult to determine if this project was the best one for the City when it was the only one being reviewed. Mr. Poling asked how the Game Farm Road modernization project had been determined to be at the top of the priority list. Mr. Schoening replied that the council adopted a capital budget with the project in it, so there was a sense that some sort of prioritization placed it there over other projects. He said, based on the existing scoring criteria, it was felt that the project would score highly. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 7 Work Session