My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 04/27/09 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2009
>
CC Minutes - 04/27/09 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:28:23 AM
Creation date
6/29/2009 4:36:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/27/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Schoening said the $2.25 million in stimulus funds were awarded to the City in a competitive process at <br />the state level, which meant there were other projects that were not funded. He said the Oregon Transporta- <br />tion Commission (OTC) had the authority to obligate those funds and he could not imagine a scenario in <br />which the City of Eugene could use the funds for any other purpose. He said the $1 million in transportation <br />enhancement funds was also awarded through a competitive OTC grant process in which other projects were <br />not funded. The $2.8 million earmark from the last federal transportation bill was specifically for the Delta <br />Ponds bridge project and it would likely take congressional action to make them available for another use. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy commented that if the City changed its mind about the project, the funds could be reallocated <br />to another jurisdiction and the 85 jobs associated with the project would be lost to the community. <br /> <br />Councilor Brown asked why property owners were unwilling to sell. Mr. Schoening said he was optimistic <br />that the City could reach an agreement with the property owners, but it was a matter of timing. He said in <br />one instance a property owner and tenant both had rights to compensation. <br /> <br />In response to questions from Councilor Brown, Mr. Schoening explained that the owner and tenant would <br />be compensated through rent for the staging area during construction; the portions to be acquired were not <br />currently being used. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka asked how long the project had been in the planning process. Mr. Schoening replied that <br />the project had been in Trans Plan since 1986 and the concept was in bicycle plans before that; it had been <br />in the City’s capital improvement program for four or five years. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka remarked that the project would create 85 jobs, plus the purchase of materials from local <br />businesses. Mr. Schoening agreed and added that unlike paving projects, which employed a narrow segment <br />of the construction industry, the project would provide a wide range of opportunities for many different <br />types of contractors. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka asked if the property owner would be paid fair market value. Mr. Schoening said the <br />City would pay fair market value for an easement. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka asked what constraints were placed on use of the funds. Mr. Schoening said two of the <br />funding sources related to the federal transportation enhancement program, required that a certain portion of <br />funds were spent on projects such as bike paths and historic structures. The remaining funds represented a <br />specific earmark in federal legislation for the project. He confirmed that the funds could not be repro- <br />grammed by the City for another use. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor observed that citizens were often unhappy that restricted funds could not be used for other <br />purposes. He was willing to take two days to explore whether all options for the funds had been explored, <br />but he did not expect there would be a different outcome at the April 29 meeting. <br /> <br />Councilor Poling indicated he would not support the motion because it had been planned for 23 years, the <br />funds had gone through a vetting process and granted over a period of time and he did not want to risk losing <br />the funds. He had also received complaints from citizens about the project, but thought that it would <br />enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety in the area and therefore supported the project. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon asked if it was the City’s intent to have the ability to threaten property owners with eminent <br />domain to force them to negotiate. Mr. Schoening said the City had been working with the property owner <br />for some time and the resolution would provide some certainty about acquiring the necessary property rights <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.