Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Clark reiterated his concern. He understood that the entire request from the City of Springfield was <br />intended to pay for slurry seal. He pointed out that the City of Eugene had just taken $1 million of service <br />out of the general budget because the City could not come up with the money to fix potholes. He said while <br />the bicycle path extension was a needed project, he was challenged by the idea of giving it priority over the <br />much needed pavement work in the City's backlog. <br />Mr. Inerfeld noted that in the last three -year round of STP -U funding, all of Springfield's money had been <br />allocated to a modernization project and all of Eugene's money had been allocated to the Roosevelt <br />Boulevard pavement preservation project. <br />Mr. Pryor found it challenging to determine what proposal would do the most good for the most people. He <br />agreed that bike projects were important, but he felt that such a project had to have merit in other ways, <br />such as being able to be used for commuting or for other purposes. He considered Coburg Road to be a <br />clear project that would benefit a lot of people as well as a project that would cost less money out of a <br />restricted amount of money. Because of this, he found the Coburg Road project to be more understandable. <br />He suggested the City submit the bike path project in the next round of funding. He also agreed with Ms. <br />Ortiz regarding Seneca Road, calling it "atrocious." <br />Mr. Zelenka asked that the agenda materials on the STP -U funding provided to the MPC be copied for the <br />council. He was curious as to how the three projects that were being recommended had "floated to the <br />top." He said other projects on the list included the Glenwood Riverfront Path, which was a joint project <br />with Springfield at $85,000, and pavement preservation projects such as Minda Drive, projected to cost <br />$309,000, 33r Avenue, projected to cost $345,000, and Hawkins Lane, projected to cost $600,000. He <br />wanted to know what the process was for determining this. <br />Mr. Inerfeld stated that the Glenwood project would go before the MPC on the following day for action. <br />He explained that because of the timing of the project, it required an answer as soon as possible. He said <br />the request was coming from Springfield, though it would also benefit Eugene. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if it was then in Springfield's project list. Mr. Inerfeld responded that there were some <br />other STP -U funds on the table, in addition to the $1.6 million, because the City of Coburg had returned <br />some funds it had not used. <br />Mr. Inerfeld explained, in response to Mr. Zelenka's original question, that the reason staff was putting the <br />Coburg Road project forward was because of its regional significance and that it was seen as a multi -modal <br />street. He said when competing with other jurisdictions, staff tried to put the best project forward. <br />Mr. Zelenka allowed as how that made sense but wondered why the bike path project would rise above the <br />three pavement preservation projects he had listed, though it was projected to cost almost as much as all <br />three of them combined. Mr. Inerfeld replied that the bike path was a project that was partially funded <br />already, but had a funding gap. He said staff saw the STP -U funds as a way to fill this gap. He noted that <br />the project had been on the United Front list for years, adding that staff tried to prioritize United Front list <br />projects. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 8 <br />Work Session <br />