Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/24/05 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall January 24, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Papd, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Poling noted Eric Forrest's resignation from the Budget Committee and indicated his intent to offer the body a motion to appoint a replacement to the committee. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to appoint Jon Dembowski to the Budget Committee position being vacated with the resignation of Eric Forrest. Mr. Poling believed that it was best to bring Mr. Dembowski on the committee now to ensure the Budget Committee had a full complement of members prior to the start of the annual budget review. Ms. Taylor did not support the motion as she preferred to look at all the candidates' applications again before taking a vote on the topic. Ms. Bettman supported the motion since the candidate interviews had occurred fairly recently and the individual in question had received some support. She agreed that it would be better to get someone on the committee sooner rather than later. Mr. Kelly also supported the motion as he recalled Mr. Dembowski's interview and thought his experience, enthusiasm, and analytical ability would benefit the committee. He agreed that now was a good time to get a new committee member in place. Mr. Poling suggested the council consider developing a process to replace early exiting committee members for the future. Ms. Taylor reiterated her interest in having the full council reconsidering all the applicants. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Pyror had no items. Ms. Taylor recalled that during a recent council work session on the Planning Division's work plan, she had expressed interest in a tour of the Eugene sites designated for mixed-use. She said Senior Planner Kurt Yeiter had indicated willingness to conduct councilors on such a tour. She polled other councilors for their interest in a tour; a majority indicated interest. Ms. Taylor complimented an officer of the Eugene Police Department for his excellent work in keeping the peace at a counter-demonstration during a peace demonstration at the federal building. She said she did not know the officer's name. Mr. Pap6 reported that he and Mayor Piercy toured the federal court construction site earlier in the month and he recommended the tour to other councilors. He said he would be willing to help set such tours up. Mr. Pap6 said that he had attended the opening of the new Jordan Schnitzer Art Museum and congratulated the University of Oregon and Schnitzer family on the newly expanded facilities. He thanked members of the museum board, including his sister-in-law Susie Pap6, board chair, for their work in realizing the expansion. Mr. Kelly also commended the remodeled art museum. He said the expansion preserved the integrity of the original structure while transforming the facility. Mr. Kelly called attention to a memorandum in the council's packet from Eugene Police Chief Robert Lehner on the issues around trespassing and panhandling. He supported the business owners' needs and rights to enforce trespassing by uninvited interlopers but also believed the City needed to be mindful of the State and federal constitutions as they regarded free speech. He requested a memorandum regarding recent federal or State court action on issues of free speech on public sidewalks, recalling a recent case decided by the Sixth Court of Appeals, which had ruled in United Church of Christ v. Gateway Economic Develop- ment Corp. that sidewalks in a public/private complex could be considered public sidewalks. Ms. Solomon had no items. Mayor Piercy expressed her appreciation for the opportunity to be part of the recent Martin Luther King, Jr., commemorative event. She agreed that the art museum reopening was a wonderful event and suggested the economic energy generated by that facility could be extended to the arts in downtown. Mayor Piercy noted her concern about the potential for a strike by Lane Transit District drivers, and said she contacted representatives of both management and the Amalgamated Transit Union and urged them to continue negotiations. She expressed concern about the impact of a potential strike on low-income residents who were completely dependent on mass transit. City Manager Dennis Taylor said he could not imagine a finer week than last week, when the weather was beautiful, the Martin Luther King, Jr. event went well, and the art museum reopened. City Manager Taylor called attention to a Consent Calendar item regarding the Certified Annual Financial Report (CAFR), which gave the City a good report. He commended the CAFR to the community and council as a %napshot" of the budget. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 2 Work Session City Manager Taylor reminded the council and public that this was the last week the International City Managers Association (ICMA) would solicit input from the public regarding the Eugene Police Department. He encouraged people to contact the ICMA, and provided a telephone number to the council and members of the viewing public. B. WORK SESSION: Context-Sensitive Design and Funding of Crest Drive Neighborhood Street Improvements The council was joined for the item by City Engineer Mark Schoening. Gary McNeel of the Engineering Division was also present for the item. Mr. Schoening explained why the City categorized streets, saying the street hierarchy and functional classification of streets as local, collector, and arterial provided a framework of a comprehensive and understandable transportation system that maintains and enhances the mobility of all modes. The design standards for streets were included in the City's Arterial and Collector Street Plan. He reviewed the history of the City's street classification effort, which began in 1999. All streets were classified at the time, with the exception of the Crest Drive neighborhood. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that it direct staff to conduct a separate study of the Crest Drive area to determine how the streets should be classified and the design standards associated with the classifications. That study was completed in November 2003. In February 2004, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that certain sections of Crest, Storey, Friendly, and McLean streets be designated as neighborhood collectors. At a council work session in April 2004, the council directed staff to conduct a more inclusive outreach program to area residents, which occurred over the summer of 2004. Continuing, Mr. Schoening said that staff returned to the council in October 2004 with the results of the outreach. A public hearing was held, and action was pulled because the council majority did not appear to support the classification of any streets as neighborhood collectors. There was council interest in moving forward with a design for the streets, followed by reconsideration of the classification issue. Staff had proposed a process to accomplish that direction. Mr. Schoening called the council's attention to three funding methods outlined in the agenda item summary: 1. Direct the City Manager to prepare a resolution to initiate a local improvement district for the design and construction of street improvements' using the principles of context-sensitive design for those sections of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street shown on Attachment B. 2. Appropriate $240,000 in General Fund in the FY06 Annual Budget for the preliminary design of street improvements' using the principles of context-sensitive design for those sections of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street shown on Attachment B. 3. Request that the Lane County Board of Commissioners program funds for the improvement of those sections of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street shown on Attachment B in the Lane County FYO6-FY10 Capital Improvement Program. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Schoening recommended that the council pursue Option 1, and direct the City Manager to prepare a resolution to initiate a local improvement district (LID). Mr. Schoening briefly described the context-sensitive design process, which would account for such things as the rural feel of the neighborhood and the values of residents. He referred the council to Attachment A in the agenda item summary, and reviewed the six principles outlined: 1. Balance safety, mobility, community and environmental goals in the project. 2. Involve the public and affected parties early and continuously. 3. Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to each projects needs. 4. Address all modes of travel/transportation. 5. Apply flexibility inherent in design standards. 6. Incorporate aesthetics as an integral part of good design. Mr. Schoening said that staff solicited issues about the design from neighbors at the last public meeting, and heard a request that the path be bark-mulched. That required staff to consider the ramifications of other requirements, such as from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), for example, which required hard surfaces for paths to allow the disabled to use them. The City Code also required the adjacent property to maintain sidewalks or pathways, and there was a question of what burden would be placed on the property owner from a bark-mulched path. He anticipated more such dialogue on design issues. Mr. Schoening said that the unimproved streets in the community were not in the City's preservation and maintenance backlog; they were above and beyond that. It took considerable staff resources to maintain those roads. The LID process had been used successfully in the past, and based on the City's funding outlook, he did not anticipate another viable funding mechanism for street improvements in this area. He said the neighbors were focused and had a lot of energy around the topic, and he thought the City had an opportunity to take advantage of that energy to do something good for the neighborhood and address the safety and maintenance issues caused by the condition of the streets in the neighborhood. Mr. Schoening acknowledged Mr. McNeel's work on the topic, saying he had been involved in the process from the beginning and had done much of the "heavy lifting" needed. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Ms. Taylor said that many people in the Crest Drive area did not know of the staff recommendation that a LID be formed until the last few days. She pointed out that generally, LIDs on non-collector streets were formed with the support of more than 50 percent of the residents. There had been no request to form a district. She thought the recommendation violated the trust of the residents who wanted to be involved and were told that context-sensitive design standards would be in place before anything happened. Ms. Taylor asked if there were exceptions to the ADA requirements in the case of steep terrain, for example. Mr. Schoening said yes, as long as access was available to every one. However, he did not think any of the streets in question could not accommodate a hard surface path. Ms. Taylor asked if the ADA entered into the situation if just a pavement overlay and a few stop signs were added. Mr. Schoening said no. Ms. Taylor expressed dismay that the City was not considering another method of financing outside of those MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 4 Work Session methods already in place. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's comments, Mr. Kelly said with regard to an overlay, the City had a policy in place for years that it did not overlay unimproved streets. He did not want to set a precedent for a single street that other residents had requested for their streets and did not receive. Mr. Kelly said that he had come away from the fall meetings with the sense more was needed in regard to design before the street classifications were discussed. He was glad to know that the design would come first. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the financing element and the design process. With regard to financing, he had been confused by the agenda materials because he could not recall any use of an LID as a design funding mechanism rather than an implementation method for construction. He recalled some controversial street improvement projects such as Garden Way and Ayers Road-Delta Highway where the council had directed the design be brought back before financing and construction occurred. While those processes were ~messy," he felt that good, improved streets resulted from them. He asked why a similar process could not occur for the Crest Drive area. Mr. Schoening said the initiation of a LID would allow the City to tap into its assessment fund; the LID would not actually be formed until the project was bid and a public hearing was held. He clarified that the proposal was not an LID for the design alone, but for the whole process, with a break in the middle to address the classification issue. Mr. Kelly wanted to move forward with the street design process but also wanted to know how the City had funded the Garden Way, Ayres Road and Delta Highway design processes. He did not think discussion of an LID at this point %et the right tone." Mr. Schoening pointed out that the three streets mentioned by Mr. Kelly were designated as collectors, and the City could employ transportation system development charges as a source for the project. That might have been the way the design process was funded. Mr. Kelly asked that staff check into that. Mr. Pap6 expressed appreciation to the councilors who attended the neighborhood meetings. Most of the Crest Drive residents who contacted him wanted nothing to be done, but he did not think that was an option. It would be unfair to other neighborhoods with collector and arterial streets that were also located on the periphery of the city. He had expressed his concerns about access and safety to those who contacted him. He personally used area streets to reach facilities such as Wayne Morse Ranch, for example, and wanted good access to the site. He thought the community shared that interest. Mr. Pap6 was generally pleased with the recommended process and the proposed funding mechanism. He suggested that the council might be embarking on something that allowed it to address other areas of the community with context-sensitive designs, but the City needed to be careful about the money it spent, as he questioned whether Eugene could afford context-sensitive design in other neighborhoods. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Kelly that the City could not single out the Crest Drive area for special treatment. He reiterated that doing nothing was not a viable option. With regard to sidewalks, Mr. Pap6 asked if sidewalks could meander off the street. Mr. Schoening said yes. He said that during the charette, residents expressed interest in that approach. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz about the process, Mr. Schoening indicated the LID process MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 5 Work Session included two public hearings. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pap6 that to do nothing was not an option. The council had responsibility to provide the community with safe roads for cars to drive along and sidewalks for people to walk along. City Manager Taylor emphasized the importance of continuing the dialogue between the City and the residents. Ms. Bettman said she found the neighborhood to be organized, respectful, and informed about the issues involved. For example, the neighborhood had conducted its own transportation study. She had not heard from the neighbors that they did not want to improve the roads. She heard that they understood the need, wanted the roads to be safe, and wanted the improved road not to affect their property values. Ms. Bettman thought the residents had been reasonable and sensible about the need to pay for street improvements. She thought they were the optimal group of neighbors to work with. Ms. Bettman said she did not consider the neighborhood meetings that initially occurred to represent a two- way dialogue. She found the design charette chaotic and did not think it achieved the goals. She thought it was premature to ask for an LID at this point without the neighbors having any assurance of the ultimate design. She believed that if the council sought to form an LID ahead of the design agreement and the residents agreed, they would be trading away their influence. Mr. Poling asked what type of public involvement had occurred since the council's last discussion on the topic. Mr. Schoening said the only public outreach that occurred was notice of the City Manger's decision to delay the decision in November 2004. Neighbors were notified of this meeting and the availability of related materials on the City's Web site last week. Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Schoening that if the proposed resolution passed, the City would be borrowing money from the Assessment Fund to start the design process; those residents involved in the LID would see no assessments until the completion of construction. Mr. Poling referred to Option 3, and asked what effect soliciting funding from the County would have on the City's future efforts to secure Road Fund money for preservation and maintenance. Mr. Schoening believed it would send a mixed message to the Board of County Commissioners. In this case, modernization funds would be involved rather than preservation and maintenance funds. Mr. Poling wanted to know the answers to the questions posed by Mr. Kelly regarding other City road projects. Mayor Piercy asked the manager for suggestions on how to proceed. City Manager Taylor supported the staff recommendation. He said that the City did not have a ready source of funds outside the Assessment Fund to underwrite the design process. He noted that the improvements on Garden Way and Ayres Road were largely funded by assessments. Mayor Piercy called on the council for a second round of comments and questions. Ms. Taylor recalled the reopening of Broadway was paid for by County Road Funds. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor emphasized that the design process should come before any public hearing on an LID. She thought that some people would be happy to pay for the design if it was what they wanted while others did not believe they could afford to pay for the improvements at all. Then the council would be in the position to discuss next steps. Ms. Bettman thought it appropriate to lobby the County for funds because the streets in question abutted Lane County, and they were absorbing traffic with an origin in the county. She thought the County should have an interest in the issue. Ms. Bettman questioned why the money for the design work could not be borrowed from another fund. After staff developed a mutually acceptable design, it could proceed with the LID and pay back the fund. She did not think there was an urgency to proceed. She also wanted to know the answers to Mr. Kelly's questions, and asked for staff feedback on the feasibility of her suggestion. Although Mr. Kelly agreed there was not any urgency to proceed, he wanted to keep the process moving. Mr. Kelly thought in a better environment, the LID could be formed now, but given the trust issues that existed between the neighborhood and City, he preferred not to act at this time. However, that did not mean the City could not find some way to do the needed design. Mr. Kelly asked that staff provide the council with some sense of how it arrived at the $240,000 estimate. While he acknowledged that context-sensitive design was a process, he thought it important for the council to create boundaries for the process. Mr. Kelly said that neighbors ;;felt marginalized" when they suggested such things as mulched bark paths and were told that was not possible. The council could identify those elements that could be traded off. He suggested that perhaps the money could be spent in phases, and each phase would build more trust with the neighborhood. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly, suggesting that consideration of the resolution be postponed at this time. He suggested the potential the City could ;;kick start" the process using General Fund money. He said the process could be considered a pilot for a citywide approach. City Manager Taylor said that staff had originally envisioned that it would borrow the money for the design until the process was farther along and a decision about the designation had been made. That would allow different options for spreading the cost and would affect what sources of funds that could be used. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson said the issue was whether the City Council could spend money and then later roll the money that had been spent into an LID. He said staff was seeking an answer to that question from legal counsel. Mr. Pap6 indicated he had no problem with %eeding" the design process from either General Fund dollars or from County Road Funds if they became available. Mr. Poling referred to Option 2, which called for the use of General Fund dollars, and asked if the council could borrow up to $240,000 from that source to begin the design process and then pay it back once the LID was formed and the money collected. City Manager Taylor again deferred the question to legal counsel. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 7 Work Session said that was different than Option 2, which was to appropriate the money from the General Fund rather than borrow it. Mayor Piercy recognized Ms. Bettman for the third round of comments. Ms. Bettman said the key to success would be the design process. Given the cost of the project, it was important to %tart on the right foot" and create a process that worked for both the area in question and for the city as a whole as the council would be setting a precedent. She recommended that the City consider someone like Dan Burden of Walkable Communities, Inc., to facilitate the process. Mayor Piercy said it appeared councilors had many concerns and questions that needed to be addressed. She emphasized the need for the City to be conscious about communicating with the neighborhood in question on a regular basis so that residents felt they got information in a timely way and understood what was happening. C. WORK SESSION: FY2005-2007 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Project List The item was a continuation of a previous discussion that occurred at the council's December 8, 2004, work session. The motions below were considered at that time until the item was tabled for later discussion: Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to approve the Eugene's project list in the drafi fiscal year (FY) 2005-2007 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to drop the Chad Drive project from the Met- ropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to substitute a motion that the City of Eugene resubmit all of the City's projects that were competing for Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) money under a category of maintenance and preservation so that the City could still compete for this money but it would be allocated to maintenance and preservation projects. Mr. Schoening reviewed the process used by the local metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to allocate State and federal transportation funding. He said that prior to 2002, the MPO received federal STP funds that were allocated on the basis of population. At that time, Eugene would exchange its funding allocation with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in return for State funding, which gave Eugene greater flexibility as to the use of the dollars. For example, such funds had underwritten the cost of the Polk Street neighborhood traffic calming project. However, Mr. Schoening said, after the 2000 census the metropolitan population exceeded 200,000 and the area was designated a transportation management area (TMA), which brought in more funds but changed the allocation process. Federal regulations required the MPO to develop an allocation process on a competitive project-by-project basis. The MPO received $2.5 million annually, and the projects were programmed in a three-year cycle through the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). Continuing, Mr. Schoening said the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), acting through the MPO, had MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 8 Work Session the authority to allocate the STP funds. Voting members included Lane County, Lane Transit District, Springfield, Eugene, Coburg, and ODOT. All jurisdictions except Coburg and ODOT had two voting representatives; those entities had one representative. In order for action items to be passed by the MPC, there must be at least one affirmative vote from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. Mr. Schoening reported that the FY 2004-2006 MTIP was the first to employ the new allocation process. The Transportation Planning Committee (TPC), a staff group that reflected the make-up of the MPC, developed the categories of projects, criteria, and scoring process for the MTIP. The MPC had considered that work at its August 14, 2003, meeting. At that time, the MPC approved four categories of funding and funding splits: 1) preservation (50 percent), 2) modernization (20 percent), 3) planning and project development (20 percent), and 4) transportation demand management (TDM) (10 percent). The MPC also approved the criteria to be used to score projects in the categories. The MPC subsequently reviewed the projects submitted by the jurisdictions for funding, and the City secured money for the cost of its participa- tion in regional transportation planning and modernization dollars for the Chad Drive extension and the Monroe-Friendly bikeway. Mr. Schoening said that after the MPC adopted the criteria in September 2003, the City Council passed a motion directing that staff work with the Lane Council of Governments and the MPC to modify the STP-U evaluation criteria so that individual jurisdictions could prioritize the funding of operations, maintenance, and preservation of the road system. On October 9, 2003, the MPC considered a motion made by Ms. Bettman to combine the funding for the modernization and preservation categories for STP-U fund allocations and, within the new combined category, to allow jurisdictions to withdraw or resubmit project applications. That motion failed. Mr. Schoening said the MPC then adopted the 2004-2006 MTIP. Mr. Schoening said the FY2005-2007 MTIP included no new allocation of federal funds. He said the project list included with the agenda item summary was annotated to show the source of the Eugene projects. The two new projects for Eugene were the realignment of Airport Road and the Patterson Street underpass. Mr. Schoening said the council held a work session on the MTIP on December 8 during which the tabled motions were discussed. The MPC met on December 9 to consider the FY2005-2007 MTIP, but ran out of time before it could do so, and as a consequence met again on December 30. The MPC agreed that the individual elected bodies could continue to offer comment. Mr. Schoening noted that Paul Thompson and Tom Schwetz of the Lane Council of Governments were present for the item to answer questions. Ms. Bettman referred the council to the last tabled motion and asked to be allowed to clarify the intent of the motion by changing the wording. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to pursue and achieve amendments to the fund allocation process for the federal Surface Transportation Program (and any other source of flexible funding) by working with the TPC, MPC/MPO, and Eugene's representatives on the MPC/MPO in order that Eugene's allocation will be dedicated to fund maintenance and preservation of the existing road and off-street bikeway system until such time that the backlog of maintenance and preservation is eliminated, unless an exception is directed by the City Council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman said she had been working for a long time to allocate the dollars in question to preservation and maintenance. However, her efforts had not been successful. She believed that the City's road maintenance and preservation budget deficit was attributable to the lack of political will over the past few decades to prioritize those items. Decisions had been made to fund new projects at the expense of maintenance and preservation. Ms. Bettman asserted that of the $185 million allocated through the MTIP, only $2.2 million was flexible funding available to Eugene. She said that reallocating those funds would not stop any new road projects from going forward given the small amount involved. She said the City was forced to go to its taxpayers for money because of priority and funding decisions made by the MPC. Ms. Bettman maintained that historically, Eugene representatives ;;had not had a say" in the regional project list approved by the MPC. Ms. Bettman noted that the Springfield City Council reviewed that city's project list in light of that community's priorities. She thought it was Eugene's fiscal responsibility to do the same thing. With regard to the evaluation matrix adopted by the MPC, Ms. Bettman maintained that the project list could be adjusted based on the Eugene council's priorities. She noted that Coburg was not subjected to the criteria and received STP-U funding without going through the matrix evaluation process. She believed there were exceptions and considerable discretion in the process. She wanted to leverage that discretion so the Eugene council could tell its taxpayers it was spending as much as possible on road maintenance and preservation. Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Bettman if both of Eugene's representatives to the MPC supported her motion to change the criteria and if she knew why representatives of other jurisdictions did not support it. Ms. Bettman said former Mayor Jim Torrey and Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green had supported her motion. She had offered the body a more specific motion to allow Eugene to recover its STP-U allocation, but the motion failed to receive a second. Mr. Kelly said he asked the question because he wondered if, more than a year later, the City of Eugene could have a more productive discussion with the MPC on the topic. As he interpreted the motion, it was rather nuanced, and directed staff to assist the council in adjusting some of the rules so that if Eugene chose, it could use more of the money for maintenance and preservation projects within its own jurisdiction. He supported the motion so the City could go to MPC in a cooperative spirit and advocate for the use of the funds for that purpose. Speaking to the Chad Drive project, Mr. Kelly said that he believed it was a good project and his motion to de-fund the project was a vote against the project funding rather than the project itself. He supported the use of assessments and system development charges (SDCs) to underwrite those costs. Ms. Taylor indicated support for the motion. Mr. Pap6 said the premise and goals of the motion were lofty and worthwhile, but the ;;devil was in the details." He pointed out that the City was almost through fiscal year 2005, and asked how the motion impacted projects scheduled for construction. Ms. Bettman said her motion represented policy direction to change the matrix so that in the future Eugene had the ability to prioritize its flexible funding for mainte- nance and preservation. She wanted to reprogram the funding so that the Chad Drive project was supported MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 10 Work Session by assessments and SDCs, and the Monroe-Friendly bikeway project, which she did not think was a bikeway project at all, would be deleted entirely. The STP-U money allocated to those projects transferred to maintenance and preservation. Two other Eugene projects that did not make the list were high on the City's preservation priority list and could be elevated. Mr. Schoening said of the projects prioritized for preservation, the projects mentioned by Ms. Bettman had scored below other projects not funded. If a straight order was followed, the first project under the cut line was a City of Springfield project. Referring to the motion, Mr. Schoening clarified that there was no ';Eugene allocation" for projects. Allocations were made on a project-by-project basis. The funding was not specific to a jurisdiction. City Manager Taylor said if the motion was adopted, the change it called for would not be within his purview to accomplish. When the region became a TMA, it moved from an allocation system to one based on regional priorities, and those regional priorities were determined by the MPC. The City's representatives, Mr. Kelly and Mayor Piercy, could allocate for a change in the formula based on jurisdiction population, but that element is not in place now. He reiterated that the City's previous attempts to secure the change had been unsuccessful. Mr. Pap6 likened the federal allocation process to the ODOT allocation process, which was directed regionally. He determined from Mr. Schoening that if the City dropped the projects now being funded, the dollars could go to a project in Springfield or Coburg. Speaking to the comments of City Manager Taylor, Mr. Thompson clarified that the allocation process cannot be based on sub-allocations based on population or other proportionate means to jurisdictions. Federal regulations made it clear the allocations must be based on criteria to specific projects with specific allocations of funds. The money was not sub-allocated to jurisdictions to do with what they wished. Ms. Solomon said she appreciated what Ms. Bettman was attempting to do with regard to addressing the backlog of City preservation projects, but the motion felt like %utting off one's nose to spite one's face." She did not want to give up the money for projects outside Eugene's jurisdiction. Mr. Poling indicated his questions were answered by staff. He agreed with Ms. Solomon that he did not want to see the money returned to the MPC for reallocation to non-Eugene projects. He said that the council could pursue some of the concepts in Ms. Bettman's motion for future MTIPs, but at this point he thought the City was too far along in the process to give up the money allocated to Eugene projects. Mr. Kelly said Ms. Bettman's motion merely spoke to the need for a change in the funding formula for the future. It did not change anything in the current MTIP. It merely asked staff to work with the MPC to change the funding formula. If the council wanted to achieve its street preservation goals in the long-mn, it should support the motion. Mr. Kelly said he did not know all the federal regulations intimately, but he was unconvinced that the federal allocation formula was as precise as had been stated to the council by staff. He wanted to see ';chapter and verse" of the regulations. He believed other qualitative factors should not be ignored. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Schwetz said the MPC established the percentages for the four categories, and it could change those percentage targets and, if it wished, place 100 percent toward preservation or modernization. However, the MPC could not develop a process that resulted in the suballocation of funds to a jurisdiction for its subsequent decision and use. Mr. Kelly said the motion, if it passed, was forward-looking and would not take away money from Eugene projects. He suggested Ms. Bettman revise the motion to read "so that Eugene could better compete for maintenance and preservation projects..." Ms. Bettman declined to accept the amendment because she took the text directly from the MTIP, which spoke of allocations throughout the document. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about the source of the motion's text and if it discussed allocations to specific jurisdictions, Mr. Thompson said that the STP-U funds allocated by the MPO could be allocated to projects, but not to jurisdictions. Thus, the use of the word ;;allocation" was correct, but the issue was allocating funds to specific projects or programs rather than to jurisdictions to use as they wish. Ms. Bettman indicated willingness to modify the motion to read ;;Eugene's project allocation would be dedicated..." Ms. Bettman believed that each jurisdiction should have the ability to compete for money to fund their priorities. That was why she asked the MPC to change the criteria. That would have given all jurisdictions the opportunity to do what Eugene wanted to do, but did not force them to do so. Her motions were voted down. She interpreted that as meaning that Springfield and Lane County were telling Eugene what it could spend money on. As the funding decisions were made at the MPC, if the next project on the list was a Springfield project, it was up to the MPC to create equity, or the City could negotiate with the MPC to fund the next preservation project on the list instead of a new capacity project. She believed the MPC could do so. She said that MPC made the rules, and could change them. Ms. Bettman said that Eugene's population represented two-thirds of the metropolitan area, and while she was not arguing for two-thirds of the funding available, she wanted what was available for maintenance and preservation in Eugene. Mr. Pap6 asked if passage of the motion would have an impact on the FY05-06 allocations. Mr. Schoening said no, not if he understood Ms. Bettman's intent as interpreted by Mr. Kelly. It would have an impact on the next federal fund allocation. Mr. Pap6 said he continued to be confused about what regulations were imposed on the region by the federal government and what MPC rules could be changed to facilitate Ms. Bettman's intent. Mr. Thompson said the MPC could change its funding targets across four categories. Within those guidelines the MPC developed, funds must be allocated to projects rather than to jurisdictions. Projects must meet other guidelines; for example, the federal government precluded the use of the funds for local streets, and they could be used for preservation, not maintenance. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Thompson confirmed that the category target percentages, if changed, would be changed for all jurisdictions. Mr. Pap6 asked if Eugene could seek a higher percentage for preservation projects with the understanding that the funding was mostly for Eugene projects. Mr. Thompson said that could be accomplished if the MPC members chose to do so. Mr. Pap6 suggested it would be more appropriate to ask the City's MPC representatives to seek the change, MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 12 Work Session as opposed to the City Manager. Ms. Bettman disagreed, saying it was a policy issue. It would require the City Manager and City staff on the TPC as well as the City's MPC representatives to make the change. Ms. Solomon asked if it was possible that other preservation projects for other jurisdictions would compete for the money before Eugene. City Manager Taylor said yes, but pointed out that Eugene had many such preservation projects while some of the other jurisdictions did not. He said the issue the MPC would consider was whether it was a good regional policy to put a greater percentage of STP-U funds into pavement preservation. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the complexity of the issues involved. She did not think the councilors could "all come up to speed" on the MPC process at one work session. Mr. Pryor interpreted the motion to mean the City was asking rather than telling the MPC to modify its allocation process in order to achieve some of Eugene's policy goals. He said that it was possible the MPC would say no, or it could say yes, but the City might not see a dollar more of the money. The money could go instead to regional preservation projects. Ms. Taylor believed that Eugene should be able to fund its preservation priorities and would be able to do so better if Ms. Bettman's motion passed. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the word ~maintenance" be removed from the motion since maintenance projects were not eligible for the STP-U funding. Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman shared the application used by jurisdictions for projects competing for the funds, noting that the formula used weighed the components of the projects for evaluation. She thought it was merely a matter of changing the weighting system to allow Eugene to compete successfully for preservation projects. She questioned staff's assertions that operations could not be funded by the federal dollars available, as it was her opinion that allocations for planning were for operations. Mr. Schwetz said the MPC set targets for modernization, preservation, planning, and TDM. To accomplish what Ms. Bettman desired, the City would have to work with the MPC to change the percentage allocation for the funding targets so that more money was spent on preservation in the future. Mr. Schoening interpreted the motion as asking the MPC to mix all the available funding so that Springfield's moderniza- tion projects could compete against Eugene's preservation project using a weighted scoring system. City Attorney Glenn Klein interpreted the motion as directing the manager and the City's MPC representa- tives to determine how Eugene could obtain more federal funds for preservation, and to go to the MPC and advocate for that. Ms. Solomon asked if the passage of the motion would be at the expense of modernization and TDM. Ms. Bettman believed the answer to that question depended on one's perception. She believed the motion merely allowed the City to achieve its stated priorities. City Manger Taylor clarified that if the motion passed and the City was successful in getting the change, a greater proportion of STP-U funds would be available for preservation projects. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 13 Work Session Mr. Klein asked the council to confirm that no one objected to the vote as the final vote on the main motion. There was no objection. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager, in cooperation with council representatives of the MPC/MPO, to amend the fiscal year 2005-07 MTIP to fund the Chad Drive extension, Roosevelt ex- tension Terry to Royal exclusively with system development charges and assessments, and to reprogram all STP-U funding in the Monroe-Friendly bikeway and the Chad Drive extension to the highest priority road or bike- way preservation projects. After which the City Manager will return to the City Council for approval of the amended FY05-07 MTIP. Ms. Bettman said she included the Roosevelt extension in the motion because of her concerns about its source of funding. She did not know where the rest of the projected funding was to come from, so she added it to the motion. Regarding the Monroe-Friendly bikeway project, she interpreted the work as being %asically signage." She did not think it was the same priority as some preservation projects and objected to using the money for the project. She maintained that the Chad Drive extension could be funded by SDCs and assessments. She found her position consistent with the City's priorities regarding both TransPlan and the maintenance of existing road system. Mr. Poling said that the money for Chad Drive would go back to the regional pot and might not be available to Eugene. The council approved the project in a variety of venues. It coincided with a County project to upgrade Game Farm Road. The extension would take traffic off local streets and extend the lives of those roads. He felt it important to keep the project alive. Mr. Kelly agreed about the value of the Chad Drive project, but the motion did not delete the project, it changed how it was paid for. For that reason, he could support it. Mr. Pap~ thought the last motion was government at its best, a policy-setting exercise, while he likened the motion before the council to switching courses on a marathon runner. Ms. Ortiz indicated she was unprepared to take action at this time and would move to table the motion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to table the motion. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Poling voting no. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 14 Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 15 Work Session