Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

recommendations were presented during the 2010 special session and resulted in SB 1059. She reviewed the SB1059 mandates to reduce GHG emissions. Ms. Wilson said the fiscal impact of SB 1059 was determined to be $2 million and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had indicated those funds would come from existing resources: State Transpor- tation Improvement Program (STIP) and General Fund money. She said there was advocacy for using only new money for the GHG mandates and the MPC letter stressed the need to obtain funding for activities aimed at complying with HB 2001. She reviewed the timeline for GHG-reduction planning activities. Ms. Piercy commented that the MPC was committed to GHG-reduction and was including appropriate language in all of its work plans. Mr. Clark noted that the Beltline Facility Plan stakeholders’ group had discussed the relationship of alternative transportation modes and new technology to GHG and asked if there would be local input on the modeling ODOT used to determine the impact of VMT on GHG emissions. Ms. Wilson replied that ODOT was developing a statewide strategy to address GHG emissions and targets would be developed for each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); how the MPO would meet its target would be determined locally. Mr. Clark said the nexus between GHG and VMT was not clear and he hoped the State’s work would help clarify the issue. He was concerned that the MPO was tasked with developing its strategies after the State had established MPO targets in 2013 or 2014, but decisions regarding Beltline would be made long before that. Ms. Wilson explained there were two processes under way simultaneously: the local MPO process required under HB 2001 and the process that ODOT and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) were undergoing as required by SB 1059. Mr. Clark said it appeared that the Beltline project would be primarily informed by results from the ODOT and Metro processes rather than by local efforts. Ms. Wilson agreed and said that would result in a considerable cost savings. Ms. Piercy pointed out that prior to the current legislative mandates the MPO still had goals established by ODOT for VMT reductions. The new requirements added to those goals. Ms. Solomon questioned how the new requirements were different from the TransPlan directive to reduce VMT. She said it appeared that plans were being layered upon plans and that was inefficient and confusing. She felt that the funds could be better spent on transit, which moved people out of their cars, instead of more planning activities. Ms. Wilson said the current mandate was for MPOs to determine local scenarios, implementation strategies and impediments and report back to the legislature. Mr. Pryor commented that TransPlan dealt with many of the issues 20 years ago, but it was primarily addressing a land use outcome. He said the current mandate took a different approach to addressing the reduction of GHG through a wide range of strategies. He emphasized that there would be a cost to GHG reduction. Mr. Zelenka remarked that a legislative effort to increase transit dollars, unrelated to the GHG initiative, was defeated. He said the MPO needed to develop two scenarios by the July 2013 deadline, and choose one MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 12, 2010 Page 3 Work Session