Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/08/05 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall June 8, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Papd, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Acquisition Update on East Fork Amazon Headwaters--Dillard Road City Manager Taylor introduced the item, noting that Parks and Open Space Division manager Johnny Medlin was present to provide the council with an update about the potential for the City to acquire a parcel located on Dillard Road in the southeast hills area of Eugene. Mr. Medlin recalled the property was considered by the council as part of the Stream Corridor Acquisition Study in 2001 and at that time it was a Tier 3 site known as Parcel 11. At that time, the council directed staff to explore the acquisition of the stream corridor contained by the property. He reported that the City had purchased 54 acres of the more than 90-plus acre parcel shortly thereafter, using Stormwater Funds and funds from the 1998 parks and open space bond. He called the council's attention to an enlarged version of Exhibit C from the council's meeting packet, also mounted on the wall, which showed the extent of the City- owned property. Mr. Medlin said the City continued discussions with a previous property owner about the potential of acquiring additional stream corridor segments in the remaining area. At one point, City staff believed it had reached agreement with the property owner to acquire those segments; however, the property owner asked the City to consider acquisition of the entire site. Mr. Medlin noted that initial acquisition of the total site was not considered a priority in the ridgeline trail acquisition program as the ridgeline trail already had available public property in this area. However, the parcel would provide the City with an opportunity to create an additional connection to the trail for properties to the north. Mr. Medlin said the City made an offer of $300,000 for the property in the hopes it would spur the donation of the remaining value of the property. Staff thought it had reached an agreement on the purchase but it was subsequently sold to another party for $325,000. Mr. Medlin said staff began to work with the new property owner to acquire the entire parcel, and that individual indicated his willingness to sell the parcel for $600,000 if the City could meet the conditions of the sale and complete the transaction by October 1, 2004. The City had been unable to do so. He noted the City's appraisal for the property was about $430,000. Mr. Medlin said that on offer was made for the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 1 Work Session property for the appraised amount, but the offer was declined. Mr. Medlin said the City had indicated to the property owner it was still interested in purchasing the property. The owner wanted to examine the development potential of the property before further discussions with the City. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Medlin said City staff believed it had authorization to proceed with the acquisition given the council's past actions related to the Stream Corridor Acquisition program and the ridgeline trail acquisition program. Ms. Taylor said people continued to say south Eugene had too many parks; but the reports from Mr. Medlin and consultant Eben Fodor, who was commissioned by area residents, indicated that Ms. Ortiz's ward, Ward 1, had the most parks of any ward. She acknowledged that south Eugene had more community-type parks and large open spaces. Ms. Taylor believed significant natural resources needed to be preserved where they existed. She maintained those areas belonged to everyone in the city, not just those who live near them. They contribute to the community's beauty and health. Ms. Taylor said there were residents willing to help the City find the money to purchase the property and she thought the City should work with them. She said the area in question was pristine but unprotected, as noted by Mr. Medlin himself in a grant application. The property had never been logged and it contained two stream channels, wetlands, old growth maple trees, and Douglas fir trees. It was important for water quality and storm water retention. Mr. Kelly thanked staff and the residents of the area for providing the council with additional information. He observed that the acquisition would also support the metropolitan Rivers to Ridges Plan and was supported for that reason by the Lane Council of Governments and Lane County Parks Department. Mr. Kelly said information provided to the council suggested that long-term maintenance costs for the stream corridors on the site were likely to be less than if the parcel was developed, due to the change in impervious areas and modifications to the vegetation. Mr. Kelly wanted staff to keep talking to the property owner and neighbors and to develop a public-private partnership that would lead to protection of the area in question. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the information provided by staff and the residents, which she believed established that the property in question was valuable. She said the only gap in the materials she perceived was a lack of discussion about best management practices and green infrastructure approaches. She saw the acquisition as an asset in that regard. She wanted City staff to pursue the property acquisition with renewed vigor. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Medlin that the State grant funding the City sought for the purchase was an annual grant, depending on funding available from the federal government. Ms. Bettman asked if the City could reapply for the grant funding from the State this year. Mr. Medlin said he would if he believed the City had a willing seller. The grant did not require a willing seller, but it did require the City to expend the grant award within a certain time period, which usually required the cooperation of the property owner. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pap6 believed the trustee of the previous owners would disagree with the staff summary of the City's attempts to purchase the property. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Medlin that the City purchased the original 54 acres because of the Stream Corridor Acquisition Program and because of its proximity to the ridgeline trail. There were multiple objectives for the purchase. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Medlin confirmed that staff asked an appraiser and engineering firm to look at the development potential of the property. Mr. Pap6 asked if 110 housing units could be accommodated on the property. Acting Planning Division Manager Steve Nystrom did not know what was possible at this time. He believed the current zoning district would allow closer to 200 units, but what was realistic could differ from that estimate. Mr. Medlin added that the City had hoped for an appraisal that supported the higher asking price of $600,000 and did not receive that. Mr. Pap6 said he was not contending the south hills were %ver-parked" but he contended other areas of the community were ;;under-parked." He said that he did not object if someone purchased the property and donated it to the City. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Medlin that the City had generally achieved its goals for acres in the ridgeline trail system but had about $150,000 left for property acquisitions. Mr. Medlin called the council's attention to a map of City park land that illustrated the extent of ridgeline trail acquisitions and demon- strated some of the remaining gaps in the system. He believed there was a need for further acquisitions. Mr. Pap6 agreed, but said the City needed community parks in the north and it would take even more funding to get that done. He wanted to see parks and open space purchases in that area. Mr. Medlin noted that of the bond proceeds, there was also money for a neighborhood park in Santa Clara. He concurred, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap6, that funding would not both buy and develop a park in that area. Mr. Pryor said he had not heard anyone say the property was not of interest if it could be acquired. However, he questioned whether there were the resources to purchase it at this time. No one seemed to know what the price would be. He said there appeared to be continuing interest in acquisition on the part of the council. He said the grant application must be a package. He thought it would be premature to make a motion at this time and suggested the council let the process ;;play out." Ms. Solomon agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. She was concerned about the City's purchase of property that was currently subject to property taxes being taken off the tax rolls at a time such revenues were needed. She preferred to continue with the proposed stormwater acquisition. She suggested staff continue negotiations with the property owner and that the neighbors purchase the property and donate it to the City if they wanted. She also suggested that if the City purchased the property, it give up an equal amount of land someplace else to ensure that revenues were not reduced, thus further eroding the City's ability to provide desired services to citizens. Mr. Poling also supported the acquisition of the property. He suggested the City continue to work on the acquisition before it made a grant application to the State for funding. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 3 Work Session In regard to Ms. Solomon's suggestion that the City give up properties, Mr. Poling agreed that the north and west were under-parked and the City had acquired properties in those areas with promises to develop them as parks. He cited the former Willakenzie School site as an example. He could not see the City giving up those properties for development. He recommended staff proceed and attempt to work out an agreement with the property owner and encourage a public-private partnership. Ms. Ortiz said she was learning from the process that the council needed to let the community define what it needed, rather than telling residents what they were gong to get. She said the residents were telling the City what they wanted in regard to the parks. Mayor Piercy said parks and open spaces served different functions. Some open space was for walking and exercising, and other open spaces were more necessary for the health of the community because of their other functions, such as stormwater retention. Mayor Piercy was unsure how to separate those functions, saying that when placed in the %ame pile" they competed against each other. Mr. Medlin believed that parks and open spaces had different functions but were also very similar. He pointed out that their relationships to recreation, quality of life, and the experience of living in Eugene. Those who used the City's active parks for programmed activities also enjoyed the experience of using an open space not impacted by development. Open spaces were managed for their ecological functions, such as habitat and stormwater, as well as their recreation functions. Mayor Piercy agreed with Mr. Medlin's remarks, saying she was concerned that a discussion focused on the allocation of parks acreage alone missed the other values that came from having open spaces in the community. City Manager Taylor observed that in the case of the property in question, the issues of the ridgeline trail and stream corridor access came together. He believed that with the neighbors' interest in the property and the willingness of the property owner to continue discussions, it was possible the City could acquire the property successfully and within its means. He assured the council and neighborhood that City staff was committed to continuing the discussion with the property owner. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of questions and comments. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mayor Piercy that both open spaces and park lands were needed. She commended the foresight shown by previous Eugene leaders in purchasing park land for the future of the community. Ms. Taylor noted the presence of Pileated woodpeckers on the Dillard property. Ms. Taylor spoke of the potential of the pollution that could be created by development in this area of the community. She said that evidence had been provided to the council that the sewer system was in danger of failure. The development of the land would put more strain on that system and on the Amazon Creek. Ms. Taylor did not think the property should be developed at all. Ms. Bettman suggested the council consider the issue as an opportunity to target high-density residential development throughout the community and "preserve livability," rather than attempt to spread high- density development across all neighborhoods in a %ookie-cutter form." She said the Parks and Open Space Division and the Planning Division could work with the property owner and developer to site a high-density housing development on the property while preserving the site's natural amenities and enhancing access to MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 4 Work Session the ridgeline trail. She suggested that people would wish to purchase condominiums with access to hiking trails. Mr. Papd asked what protection the property currently had if it could not be purchased. Mr. Nystrom said the City had tree-cutting provisions that partially protected the vegetation on the property. The criteria associated with the planned unit development (PUD) process would govern any development on the property, and that included provisions for natural resource protection. Mr. Nystrom said the City had some erosion control regulations that prohibited removal of vegetation within stream corridors. A specific development proposal would trigger more regulations and address the issue of maximizing the development potential of the site while protecting natural resources. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Papd, Mr. Nystrom confirmed that the planned unit development process would likely be required for the property. Mr. Papd suggested that what Ms. Bettman proposed to achieve might be achieved through that process. Mr. Nystrom concurred. Mr. Papd asked if staff tracked the loss of land to the land supply through as a result of the City's purchase of park lands and open spaces. Acting Planning and Development Director Susan Muir indicated the City maintained a buildable lands supply inventory that would be updated through the next periodic review process. She acknowledged the property in question was included in the current residential lands supply. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. The motion passed, 6:2 Mr. Poling and Ms. Solomon voting no. Mayor Piercy recognized Ms. Taylor. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to review and update the Goal 5 wildlife habitat inventory for the south hills, using the safe harbor inventory methodology in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023-0110 in light of new informa- tion concerning the presence of the sensitive species Pileated Woodpecker in substantial ar- eas of the south hills. Ms. Taylor said that the State gave the community a choice of how to approach its inventory. The safe harbor approach allowed for the exclusion of fish but not for the exclusion of significant wildlife habitat. Staff had proceeded with the inventory on the basis that there was no significant wildlife habitat. However, significant habitat performed a life support function for wildlife species listed by the federal government as endangered or threatened, or by the State of Oregon as threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Ms. Taylor said the State listed the Pileated woodpecker as a sensitive species, so it was her assertion that the City was required to apply the standard inventory process rather than the safe harbor process. Mayor Piercy called for comments and questions on the motion. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon about the impact of the proposed motion, Mr. Bj6rklund said the City had been working on the Goal 5 process for 15 years, and was within a few months of being done with the Goal 5 work required by periodic review. The motion would add several months to that effort by adding new areas to the inventory. He said the motion, if passed, would not prevent a development proposal for the property from going forward as that process moved much more quickly than the Goal 5 process. He suggested that staff be directed to look at the City's options under the Oregon Administrative Rules for how MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 5 Work Session to revisit the area of concern and determine if, for example, there were other habitat types that should be examined. Mr. Kelly said the motion came up as a result of research done by the Friends of Eugene (FOE) in regard to the property in question, he believed it stood alone and apart from the earlier discussion. He indicated support for the motion, but not because it would preclude development of the property. He said the motion did not indicate the City would automatically add property to the inventory; there were the Oregon Administrative Rules to consider in that regard. He said the research seemed to indicate the City erred in how it applied the Oregon Administrative Rules to the properties. Mr. Kelly perceived the motion as being direction to staff to double-check its work. He suggested that in the long-mn it could make completion of the Goal 5 work move more smoothly by avoiding a ~last minute blow-up" and possible litigation. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks. She supported the motion for those reasons. Regarding the issue of opportunity siting versus planned unit developments, Ms. Bettman expressed concern that staff did not rigorously pursue the types of outcomes she was discussing when she discussed opportu- nity siting. She believed it might still be necessary for the City to purchase of a part of the property to ensure any residential development was compatible with the surrounding area and developed at the highest possible densities while the remainder was preserved. She did not think the existing PUD process did enough to protect the community and maximize the City's ability to keep residences within the urban growth boundary. For that reason, she thought another tool was needed, or the PUD process should be strength- ened. Mr. Pap~ said he did not have enough information to act on the motion at this time. He wanted staff verification of the information provided by the residents. He could support something that brought back a process for the council to review. Mr. Lidz asked if the intent of the motion was to add to the current Goal 5 process, or was the work it called for to be completed after that process was done. Ms. Taylor said it was intended to be added to the current process. She maintained the issue was a legal issue. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Bj6rklund that, while he had not reviewed the motion in question, he did not interpret the motion as being restricted to any particular inventory category. Mr. Bj6rklund again emphasized the time that would be added to the process as the City had done no work on the areas in question since 2003. There was a very large body of work needed to add any areas to the inventory before the staff could get recommendations to the Planning Commission on whether to protect them. In addition, staff had not prepared any regulatory tools specific to the South Hills, and the Goal 5 process was not completed if sites were to be protected until the City had adopted and applied protection measures to the sites. Acquisition was one component of that, but not the only one. Mr. Pap~ asked the advantage of getting the Goal 5 inventory completed sooner. Mr. Bj6rklund said the City was operating under a State deadline to complete the inventory by the end of June, and while the City would miss the deadline, it had committed to the State to complete that work as soon after that deadline as possible. The issue would come before the council in September. Mr. Bj6rklund said a delay meant that any protection measures applied to sites in the current adopted inventory would not be applied until much later, and those areas would be exposed to potential impacts during that period. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Bj6rklund noted that the adopted inventory was legal, acknowledged by the State, and had survived several appeals. Passage of the motion meant the council would be amending an adopted and acknowledged inventory. He said the process was not an open process that allowed for corrections along the way. The City must go back and amend the adopted inventory. Mr. Pap6 called for the question. Ms. Solomon seconded the motion. City Manager Taylor suggested the motion was the subject of an important policy discussion and delay would allow for a staff response. Mayor Piercy asked if the delay would allow the council to address the issue in the current process if it chose to. City Manager Taylor believed so. He said the motion arose out of another issue, the Dillard - Nectar Way property, and required another discussion as it had larger implications. The motion to call the question passed unanimously. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes; Mr. Pap6, Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting no; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Taylor expressed the hope the City would attempt to purchase the property. Mr. Kelly suggested a work session be scheduled soon to ~flesh out the subtleties" of the issue. B. Work Session: Programming of Surface Transportation Program-Urban Funds City Engineer Mark Schoening was present for the item. He asked the council to approve the list of projects shown as in Attachment A to the Agenda Item Summary so that staff could complete applications and submit them to the metropolitan planning organization (MPO), which would then begin the process of programming available Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funds. He reported that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) programmed only 85 percent of the available funds and now recommended that 100 percent of fiscal year (FY) 2004 and 98 percent of FY05 and FY06 funds be programmed. Those funds, in combination with another MPC action, totaled $1.3 million. Continuing, Mr. Schoening said that at its May meeting, the MPC passed a motion that divided the funding into three program categories: 1) preservation; 2) modernization and planning and project development; and 3) transportation demand management. Staff recommended projects to be funded in the preservation and modernization and planning and project development categories. Mr. Schoening noted the four proposed street and off-street bicycle preservation projects and called the council's attention to the funding split for the proposed modernization and planning and project development project, which was the road improve- ments related to the federal courthouse. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Schoening noted that applications to the MPO were due the next day. A technical advisory subcommit- tee would review the applications on June 16, followed by a review by the Transportation Planning Committee on June 23. The MPC was scheduled to take action on the reprogramming of funds on July 14. Mr. Schoening noted that in the future, the process would involve the recently formed MPO Citizen Advisory Committee. He reported there was no time in the current process to change the criteria for how projects were scored; the last time projects were scored the City's street preservation projects scored low because they had a single purpose and the current criteria were from TransPlan and were related to alternate modes. Bicycle preservation projects scored much higher. In the next funding cycle, the Eugene staff on the TPC would work to influence the criteria so street preservation projects would score higher. Mayor Piercy called for a first round of comments and questions. Ms. Bettman questioned why there was no time to change the criteria given that she recalled the council directed staff to seek changes in the criteria in January. Mr. Schoening recalled that at that time, the council gave staff direction on the allocation split between funding categories. The MPC had adopted a motion at its May meeting that gave the preservation category 60 percent of the funding, combined the modernization and planning and project development categories and allocated 30 percent of the funding to that category, and allocated 10 percent of available funding to transportation demand management. Ms. Bettman did not believe that was consistent with the direction the council gave to staff and its MPC delegates. She maintained the council wanted criteria that allowed Eugene to utilize flexible transportation funding for preservation. The matrix employed by the MPC was a self-imposed set of criteria that she believed could be dispensed with entirely. She said funding decisions were made by the TPC, which was a staff committee from all three jurisdictions. She maintained that the TPC could make its decisions on the basis of adopted Eugene council policy, which was for funding of preservation projects. Ms. Bettman appreciated the inclusion of the changes to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) policies. Ms. Bettman said that when the council adopted the list, it was not just giving the nod to those projects, but it was also %kaying" an exception to its priorities to fund preservation projects first with any eligible money. She asked about the source of funding for the courthouse improvements in the CIP. Mr. Schoening said the funding was identified as all-federal funding except for a local match, which was to come from the County. Ms. Bettman said the council would also be making a policy exception by changing the funding source for the courthouse project. She believed those policies should have been explicitly addressed in the AlS. Ms. Bettman objected to using STP-U moneys and urban renewal funds for the road improvements associated with the federal courthouse. She recalled that she was the only councilor who opposed the courthouse project because she believed it would cost the community ~tens of millions" in transportation dollars to make the courthouse accessible. Mayor Piercy recalled that the council agreed it wanted the MPC to adhere to its funding priorities, and the council's MPC representatives pushed the issue as hard as it could to the MPC. City Manager Taylor added that staff had also attempted to make the council's case for greater flexibility to address pavement preservation at the MPC and had been unsuccessful in getting changes to the allocation formula. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 8 Work Session With regard to the courthouse project, City Manager Taylor said that when the City made its commitment to the General Services Administration (GSA) about project funding, the availability of federal funding had been uncertain. The council had agreed that if the federal funding was not received, it would use urban renewal for the project. He said the motion would otherwise require 100 percent of urban renewal activity and staff believed it preferable to save that money and use federal funds for the project. Mr. Kelly said the City's MPC representatives had worked hard to change the allocation criteria and it ~was clearly a nonstarter" in that venue. He said the STP-U funds were allocated through a three-year funding cycle, and the funds in question were additional funds above what was expected to be available in that time period. The City had received a commitment from the MPC for a review of the criteria prior to the next three-year cycle; that would occur later in the year. Mr. Kelly believed it would be easier to make a stand for the City's position for a new three-year cycle. He reiterated that the City had not received any support for its desire to change the criteria. Mr. Kelly recalled that none of the funding was allocated on a jurisdictional basis, and determined from Mr. Schoening that the TPC could recommend a different funding allocation to the MPC. Mr. Kelly said he supported the bicycle path system as one of the City's major amenities. Given that such projects would score higher than a street preservation project, he suggested the City postpone submitting its bicycle projects as a way of securing some of the STP-U money for the street preservation projects. Mr. Kelly asked about the reduction in the amount of federal funding for the courthouse roads project from $6 million to $5 million. Mr. Schoening said that the funding amount was adopted in the federal highway omnibus bill signed by the president, and what was secured was what was thought doable. Ms. Solomon supported the list and thought the funding for the courthouse project very reasonable given what would result. She expressed support for Mr. Kelly's suggestion to remove the bicycle path projects to get more street preservation funding. Mr. Schoening said in the past funding allocation process the City's bicycle path projects were above the cut line after being scored, and the preservation projects in question fell to the very bottom of the list for the entire region. It was not likely those projects would be funded if the bicycle projects were dropped. Ms. Solomon asked why the bicycle path projects were as expensive as the street projects. Mr. Schoening said the projects cost the same, but the bicycle path projects produced more mileage than the street preservation projects. Staff selected projects that would maximize the funding that came to Eugene. Mr. Poling asked what would happen if the City dropped the bicycle path projects. Mr. Schoening said the next projects on the regional project list would be funded. Mr. Poling asked if dropping the bicycle path projects would endanger the City's chances of securing preservation money for 18th Avenue and Hilyard Street. Mr. Schoening said yes, but it was unlikely that the projects would score high enough to get funding regardless of whether the bicycle project components were dropped. Mr. Poling noted for the benefit of the viewing audience that the City was leveraging $904,000 to secure a total of $1.78 million in STP-U money for street and bicycle preservation projects. He believed that was a MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 9 Work Session wise use of public money. An additional $380,000 in STP-U was earmarked for road improvements around the courthouse, and he thought it would be wise to authorize the projects. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve the attached list of preservation and modernization projects for submittal of applications for federal Surface Transportation Program-Urban funds to be reprogrammed by the Metropolitan Policy Committee. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. Mr. Pap6 did not think Mr. Kelly's suggestion would result in the desired outcome. Mr. Schoening concurred. He said that it was likely a Lane Transit District preservation project would compete better than a City preservation project. Mr. Pap6 asked if the bicycle path projects enhanced or preserved the existing system. Mr. Schoening indicated both enhancement and preservation would occur; the path would be widened from an eight-foot asphalt path to a ten-foot concrete path. Mr. Pap~ asked what commitment the City made to the GSA with regard to the courthouse road improve- ments. City Manager Taylor recalled that the council agreed to construct the road improvements using urban renewal funds as a last resort if federal funding was not forthcoming. The omnibus bill passed by Congress made $5 million available, $1 million less than hoped, and the City was obligated to fill the gap. He believed it was better to compete for the STP-U funds than to use urban renewal dollars. He thought the City was likely to be successful. Ms. Bettman indicated opposition to the motion because ~the system was broken." Through adoption of the motion the council would be allocating money from urban renewal to road projects, and that was money the council had already diverted from schools or public safety. The road involved was a State highway that City taxpayers would be paying to relocate at the behest of the federal government. Ms. Bettman said the MPC process meant that Springfield and Lane County told Eugene how to spend its transportation dollars because the City had agreed to self-imposed ~artificial criteria." The City could not do what it wanted to do with money it was eligible for. She believed all the City had to do was state it would not participate in the decision-making process as long as the criteria matrix existed. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. She asked what would happen if the council eliminated the funding intended for the courthouse road improvement projects. Mr. Schoening said the City would not submit an application for the funds and would proceed with the use of urban renewal funds as the backfill funding mechanism. The other projects on the list would go forward. Ms. Taylor was horrified to hear people talk about the deletion of bicycle path projects given the City's commitment to alternative modes of transportation. She thought those the most important projects. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by eliminating the STP- U and urban renewal funding for the courthouse if possible. Mr. Kelly said although he was unsure of the amendment's intent, it essentially revisited a past council decision about using urban renewal as a funding backstop for the road improvements associated with the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 10 Work Session courthouse project. He was willing to revisit that issue if new facts were raised, but he had heard none. Mr. Kelly said while he would be tempted to support eliminating the STP-U funds as a funding source, the effect of that would be to require the use of twice as money from urban renewal. He was more inclined to ';spread the pain" around funds. Mr. Pap6 agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. Ms. Ortiz also agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. Ms. Bettman said Eugene had not pursued other sources of funding, such as State funding. She thought that would be appropriate given the facility involved was a State highway. She thought there should be more opportunities to pursue State and federal funding. She was not supportive of using urban renewal if those other sources were not explored. Ms. Bettman recalled that any allocation of urban renewal funds over $200,000 was to be approved by the City Council. She asked if the discrete expenditure of funds for the road improvement project would be approved by the council. Mr. Kelly pointed out the council had already approved the expenditure. Ms. Bettman believed the council approved a resolution rather than a specific expenditure. She did not think the resolution superceded the urban renewal plan, which stipulated that staff was to seek council approval for such allocations. City Manager Taylor did not know the answer. Mr. Lidz said he would have to research the answer to the question. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comment that Eugene taxpayers would be paying to relocate a State facility, Ms. Solomon noted that $6.6 million of $7.6 million project was coming from a federal funding earmark and the Lane County Road Fund. The amendment to the motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 11 Work Session