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