Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

source for funds for pavement preservation had still not been established. Because of this, it was staff’s recommendation to continue to prioritize pavement preservation for federal STP-U funds. Mr. Schoening had provided data on how much the City had spent on bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the past five years at the request of Mr. Zelenka. He said it totaled $12.5 million over five years and represented a wide range of funding sources, including federal transportation enhancement funds, federal earmarked funds, federal STP-U funds, some of the stimulus funds that had come to the City in the past year, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) bicycle and pedestrian grant funds, bond measure revenue, transportation SDCs, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and, more recently, a Safe Routes to School program. He noted that the latter was a new state program that used federal funds. He said what was not included in the summary were the bicycle/pedestrian improvements that were part of the urban standard projects, such as the Court House District, the Crest Drive/Friendly Street/Storey Boulevard project, the Elmira Road/Maple Street project, and the Chad Drive project, or the money used for accessible pedestrian signals and access ramps, paid for primarily out of CDBG funds. He stated that Alternative Projects for STP-U Funding was listed in Attachment A. Mr. Poling asked if the alternative projects would be in addition or in lieu of the suggested projects. Mr. Schoening replied that the alternative projects would be in lieu of those recommended. Mr. Poling asked if it would be possible to get more than $2.7 million. Mr. Schoening responded that historically the MPC would allocate funding at a lower level and then, when it became clear how much federal STP-U funding would be available, the MPC refined and added to the allocations. Mr. Poling related that the council had received a number of emails in response to the Sustainability Commission’s recommendations. He said while they were noteworthy, because of the backlog of pavement preservation, he thought it important to maintain the current infrastructure. He supported the staff recommendation. Mayor Piercy supported the projects before them, unless council feedback indicated that they should do otherwise. She added that she would not want people to think that because they supported those projects there was not strong support for the bicycle conveyance infrastructure. She pointed out that the list of proposed bicycle improvements was long and there were other sources to seek funding for those types of projects. Mr. Clark said the list of bicycle improvements was impressive and it showed the City’s leadership on that front. His concerns lay with making sure they maintained preservation as a high priority for the present. He considered this a high priority because of cost, if needs were not addressed quickly enough, the cost would escalate and the City would lose its ability to do other things. He supported the staff recommendations. Mr. Pryor indicated that because the backlog of pavement preservation projects was significant and impacted many people it was still his top priority. He underscored that this did not mean he did not want the other projects to go forward. He wanted to do so to the greatest degree they could with other sources of money. Mr. Zelenka thanked Mr. Schoening for the memorandum. He averred that the City did spend a lot of money on bicycles, but it also spent a great deal of money on cars. To him, the issue was one of flexibility. When he read the policy, it discussed preservation in terms of existing capital transportation infrastructure and it did not say roads. He thought this could be construed to include bicycle and pedestrian paths because MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2010 Page 2 Work Session