My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2010
>
CC Agenda - 04/26/10 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:30:17 PM
Creation date
4/23/2010 11:03:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/26/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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
this was part of transportation. He pointed to Lane Transit District (LTD) route reductions and greenhouse <br />gas planning and the work he had done on the Governor’s task force as examples of emerging issues that <br />needed to be taken into consideration. He felt that the existing policy constrained Eugene. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Mr. Schoening stated that STP-U funds had been used for the <br />North Bank Path overlay and three like projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown said in reviewing the list of the three priority projects he wondered if it would hurt to add a <br />couple of bicycle projects, perhaps in the fourth and fifth places on a list. Mr. Schoening reiterated that the <br />$5.28 million would be the amount shared by all of the MPO areas, which included Coburg and Springfield <br />and historically Eugene received about half of the allocation. Mr. Brown ascertained that to add a bicycle <br />project would mean that one of the recommended projects would have to come off the list. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor commented that she had not noticed that Martin Luther King Boulevard was in bad shape and <br />asked if it was. Mr. Schoening replied that all three projects were for roads that needed an overlay prior to <br />failing. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought Hilyard Street should be higher on the list. She indicated that she would not be in favor <br />of flexibility to use the STP-U funding for new roads. She would support being more flexible when it came <br />to more preservation projects or more bicycle paths. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz commented that the three examples on the list of pedestrian and bicycle projects on Attachment A <br />were not very comprehensive. She thought if they were going to look for ways to increase the usability of <br />bicycle paths, West Eugene was “sorely underutilized.” She said she would look to the Pedestrian and <br />Bicycle Master Plan Update to see how to get safely from West Eugene to town. She would support <br />discussing a little more flexibility when it came to the STP-U funding, but she also felt they needed to <br />address the road and pothole issues. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy related that there had been a discussion at the MPC of being conscious of moving in the <br />direction of preservation and greenhouse gas emission reductions as well as determining some metrics to see <br />what they were accomplishing. She passed around copies of an application that a sub-group of the MPC <br />had put together that sought to indicate where any project was “moving the dial” on those issues. She said it <br />would come before the MPC for approval in the coming week. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Schoening to describe the process that the funding went through. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoening pointed to the timeline on the second page of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and briefly <br />highlighted it. Mr. Zelenka surmised that all of the jurisdictions made their recommendations and then the <br />staff committee convened to sort them out and the MPC made the final decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka related that he had asked Mr. Schoening about two projects listed in Attachment A, the Martin <br />Luther King Boulevard Corridor and Coburg Road Corridor, both of which contained pedestrian <br />enhancements and the latter included safety improvements for bicycles. Mr. Schoening had, at his request, <br />estimated the costs to be approximately $200,000. Mr. Zelenka thought adding those two projects to the <br />pavement preservation projects would provide them with “a better bang for the buck.” He supported doing <br />so and intended to add them as an amendment. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2010 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.