Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/19/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 19, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Downtown Police/Fire Station Options Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson said that staff had met on several occasions to discuss options on the Police/Fire stations issue. He requested council direction on some specific options that would be more fully explored and brought back to the council with detailed information. Option 1 This option was to go back to the public with the same package that had already been presented. Mr. Carlson said that staff believed that the task force did a good job of looking at the issues and it developed a solution that would resolve the needs for both the Police and Fire departments. He expressed belief that this was a viable package if the council wanted to proceed with it again. Option 2 This option was to build only the downtown police station at the current time and would involve continued work on fire issues. Mr. Carlson said that fire issues would include location of sites in west Eugene and service approaches in Santa Clara Rural Fire District. He said that Option 2 would mean going to the voters for a new police station, and the council would consider a plan for redeploying the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department in four to six years. Mr. Carlson said that, under Option 2, the police station could be built to the size outlined in the task force report (97,500 square feet), which would meet expansion needs until the year 2020. He said that the station could also be built smaller (90,000 square feet), which would allow for approximately 10 years of growth from the time the building was constructed. Mr. Carlson said that staff was proposing that the station be built on a City-owned half block and that no parking structure would be built at the same time. He noted that the parking structure would also be built later. Option 3 MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 1 Work Session This option was to build both the police and fire stations but to reduce the size of both of the facilities. Mr. Carlson said the City could try for a total package under $30 million or try for an average tax impact under $60 for the average home owner. Option 4 This option was to build a downtown fire station. Mr. Carlson said that if this option was chosen by the council, staff would recommend the funds for an interim police facility be included in the bond measure. He said that staff was not recommending this option, but included it for council consideration. Mr. Carlson said that staff recommended Option 2 with the police facility built to the full 97,500 square-foot size. He also noted that if the council wanted both facilities, staff recommended Option 3 with goal of an average tax impact under $60 for the average home owner. City Manager Jim Johnson stressed that the council did not need to actually choose an option at this point, but needed to provide direction to staff as to which option/s to explore. In response to a question from Mr. Lee regarding a timeline for a decision, City Manager Johnson said a decision needed to be made by July 24 to be on the November ballot. Mr. Lee agreed with the staff recommendation. Mr. Fart also agreed with the staff recommendation, but added that it was possible to put out the same ballot measure and have it pass if more effort were made to get the public to understand the need for both facilities. He said that Mr. Carlson's recommendation to scale back the original proposal was a prudent one. He expressed his preference of Option 2 with the facility built to its full size. Mr. Meisner also preferred Option 2 with the full build-out. He appreciated the recommendation to not build a parking structure at the same time, but expressed a desire to explore other funding options to get the parking structure built. He raised concern over going back to the voters in four to six years with a fire facility bond measure and expressed a desire to look at other funding options for that facility. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding costs to upgrade the City Hall fire facility if Option 2 were chosen, City Manager Johnson said that information would be available on June 28 or July 17. Mr. Pap8 was in favor of Option 2 with full build-out, or possibly Option 3 with a bond measure kept under $30 million. Mr. Kelly was in favor of Option 2 with the full build-out. He raised concern about the passage of a bond measure for a new police facility. He called for information on a fire station bond measure with an expansion of police into the previous fire space at City Hall. Mr. Kelly also called for information on the possibility of a divided police facility. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding the space in City Hall that the Fire Department actually occupied, Mr. Carlson said that the department occupied 11,500 square feet. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor stressed that the need for a new fire facility was urgent and said that, if the need were explained clearly to the public, a bond measure would pass easily. She commented that the council and staff needed more time to plan and to allow more time for public involvement. She added that the Police Department could be expanded into the fire space temporarily. Mayor Torrey stressed the importance of identifying the sites for the planned facilities. He also said that a decision needed to be made by the first of September in terms of where the new facility would be located. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey regarding whether the new capacity levels from the Hobson report were figured into expansion plans for the new facility, Mr. Carlson said that the task force only projected an increase of officers in relation to a population increase in the City. He said that if the City added staff due to the Hobson findings, it would use up expansion space more quickly. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey regarding whether a fire facility could be designed that could be expanded later, City Manager Johnson said that adding a bay to an existing facility would be an easy thing to do. Mr. Rayor favored Option 2 with full build-out, but called for a leaner program that included retrofitting the City Hall fire facility to seismic standards. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the possibility of a divided police facility, Chief Jim Hill said there were some parts of the department that could operate in a separate facility. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding expanding the police into the space currently occupied by the fire department at City Hall, City Manager Johnson suggested not putting offices in the basement of the building. In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding whether City Hall could be retrofitted with female dorms for fire personnel, City Manager Johnson said that it would be a topic for another work session to discuss such retrofitting and which level of seismic protection the council wanted to be built in to City Hall. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding moving evidence storage to a different location, City Manager Johnson said that it would be better to move archive storage into City Hall to avoid the rents being paid in other locations. Police Chief Jim Hill added that there would be a loss of efficiency since trips would have to be made to access evidence. Mr. Lee, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve Option 2 with full build- out as an option to be explored by staff. In response to a comment from Mr. Rayor, City Manager Johnson said that staff would look at variations of Option 2. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by adding language to direct staff to develop an option related to building a downtown fire station and converting the vacant space in City Hall for police use. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly stressed that he wanted a better understanding of the choices and that was why he made the amendment. Mr. Farr raised concern over the staff time involved in researching the option propose by Mr. Kelly. He commented that expansion of the police facility in City Hall would only gain them 11,000 square feet that was not even very useable. Mr. Meisner was not in favor of the amount of investment in the City Hall building that it would take to expand the Police Department into a vacated fire facility. He said there would still not be adequate space for the police even after the expansion. Mr. Pap8 agreed with Mr. Meisner and suggested Option 3 as an alternate in place of Mr. Kelly's amendment. He stressed the importance of building facilities that could be added onto in the future. Mr. Kelly said that the basement space was a poor working environment, but noted that it was being used and still could be used even if not efficiently. He expressed frustration that there was opposition to calling for information. In response to a question from Mr. Lee regarding the staff time involved in developing Mr. Kelly's option, City Manager Johnson said that staff could handle the work associated with two options. Mr. Carlson added that much of the information was already being worked on. The amendment failed, 4:3, with Mr. PapS, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Rayor voting in opposition. Mr. Farr notified the Mayor that he wished to change his vote. The amendment passed, 4:3, with Mr. PapS, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Rayor voting in opposition. City Manager Johnson recommended that the council look at some option related to a fire facility. Mr. Pap8 reiterated that if a two-facility option were being examined, the cost should remain below $30 million. Mr. Rayor recommended making a fire facility a separate bond measure. He commented that he did not think that anything over $25 million would pass with the voters. Mr. Farr said that the reason he changed his vote was because there would not be a great deal of money spent to develop the option and there were a lot of people in the community who really wanted to see that option and he felt that it would be a disservice to them to not examine that option. The main motion, as amended, carried unanimously, 7:0. B.TransPlan MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Planning Director Jan Childs distributed handouts to members. She introduced TransPlan Project Manager Tom Schwetz of the Lane Council of Governments, Nick Arnis of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), City Transportation Engineer Dave Reinhard, and Stephano Viggiano of Lane Transit District as staff members who would be available to answer council questions. Ms. Childs said that the majority of the work had been finished on Issue Area 4 (Transportation System Improvements Road System) during the last meeting. She said that one of the projects Mr. Kelly had questions about was related to I-5 at 30th Avenue. She said that Mr. Arnis would be able to address questions about that particular project. Ms. Childs said that Attachment B was a list of additional recommended revisions to the TransPlan project list that was on council agenda page 25. She said that these projects were recommended by Eugene staff and were specific to Eugene. She noted that for each of the issue areas where the other adopting officials had held discussions, the council would find charts that updated it in terms of discussion and direction that had been provided. She said that her entry under the West Eugene Parkway included a request for staff to provide a briefing background paper on the project and majority support for discussion of the project at the joint adopting officials work session. Mr. Kelly raised concern over the 30th Avenue/I-5 interchange project. He said he needed more help on two projects related to the 30th Avenue/I-5 interchange. He said that Project #297, as described in the staff public testimony response, sounded perfectly reasonable to him. He said TransPlan Project #257, which was a major upgrade of the overall 30th Avenue/I-5 interchange costing $15 million, concerned him because of the outlay of money in a 20-year time frame for an area outside of the Urban growth boundary. He did not want to make it easier for the urban growth boundary to move in that direction. In response to Mr. Kelly, Mr. Arnis said that the 30th Avenue/I-5 interchange was within the federal planning boundary of the metropolitan area. He said the project was not within the urban growth boundary, but the project would fix the design problems at that particular interchange. He said the project scored very high with ODOT because of older deficient designs and the need to prepare for the needs of future congestion. He added that future long-range plans for Glenwood, Franklin and I-5, and 30th Avenue and I-5 needed to be looked at with a comprehensive approach. Mr. Meisner supported the comprehensive look at that area. Mr. Farr said that safety was his number one concern. He commented that ODOT had done an excellent job of rating projects based on the safety issue. He was not convinced that there would be pressure to expand the urban growth boundary in that area because of action the council had taken in the past. He reiterated that an examination of that series of interchanges would put any pressure on the urban growth boundary. Mr. Schwetz said that the need for the project resulted from growth within the urban growth boundary. He stressed that the interchange was used by residents from within the urban growth boundary. Mr. Pap8 agreed with Mr. Farr's comments on safety. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 5 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding the safety rating of the interchange, Mr. Arnis said that the area had a moderate safety rating. He believed that the area "was an accident waiting to happen." Mr. Pap8 did not think that an improvement to the interchange would necessarily lead to an expansion of the urban growth boundary. In response to a question from Mr. Lee as to who decided issues related to changes to the urban growth boundary, Ms. Childs said that the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County decided. Mr. Kelly raised concern that the project was not a good use of State funds. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved that ODOT Project #257, the 30th Avenue/McVeigh Highway $15 million project, be moved to the future project list, and that a comprehensive study of the I-5 interchanges through the Eugene/Springfield area be added to the 20-year project list. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the chance of keeping project money in the area, Mr. Schwetz said that revenue assumptions were built into the plan that were not tied to projects. Mr. Reinhard added that it was difficult to lobby ODOT for projects. He noted that ODOT had less and less money available for improvement projects. Mr. Meisner stressed that he wanted to see a need for a particular project before prioritizing it higher than something else. He appreciated that the motion requested a comprehensive study of the interchanges. He had concern over the loss of project money, but did believed that the availability of money for a project was a project justification. He stressed the importance of looking at all of the projects within TransPlan. He said that it was short-sighted to only look at capacity building as a solution to traffic problems. Mr. Pap8 applauded ODOT for working with and listening to local communities. He believed that the project should stay on the 20-year list. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the council had already passed a motion to bring the Franklin Boulevard/I-5 interchange in from the future list for a cost of $25 million. He pointed out that the metropolitan area needed to produce a fiscally constrained 20-year plan and noted that the council needed to offset some of that $25 million dollar cost. He suggested moving the 30th Avenue/I-5 project would be a good way to do so. The motion failed, 4:3, with Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mr. Lee left the meeting at 7 p.m. Ms. Childs said that another item that Mr. Kelly wanted to discuss was the Beltline/I-5 project. Mr. Reinhard distributed a communication between himself and Mr. Kelly regarding a possible motion. Mr. Kelly said that there was a wide range of feelings regarding what was/was not warranted for Beltline/I-5. He raised concern that the plan did not show the full range of options and costs for MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Beltline/l-5 projects. Mr. Kelly stressed that he wanted to see language that a full range of options were being considered. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved that Project #606 (the Beltline/l-5 project), as revised in the errata sheet, have its price changed to indicate a range of cost options with the maximum being $38.3 million and that its description be expanded to indicate the potential for a lower cost alternative that is more safety focused and less capacity focused. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding whether the Pioneer and Game Farm road projects were included in the Beltline/l-5 project, Mr. Reinhard said that they were not included in the $38.3 million cost. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0 (Mr. Lee having left the meeting). In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding the details of the Glenwood/l-5 project, Mr. Reinhard said it was to reconfigure the interchange, address weaving, and to provide six lanes on the freeway. He noted that the details were placeholder estimates on cost. Mr. Kelly added that the project was on the future list. Mr. Meisner raised concern over assessing the costs of projects without looking at all of the projects in a comprehensive manner. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to add a project for a comprehensive study for the I-5 interchanges (between Beltline and Goshen) to the study category in the 20-year financially constrained project list. In response to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding whether staff recommended such a study, Ms. Childs said that staff recommended such a study very strongly. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.. Ms. Childs moved the discussion to Attachment B in the meeting packet. She said that the attachment contained additional recommended revisions to the TransPlan project list submitted by staff for council consideration. In response to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding funding traffic calming, Mr. Reinhard said that the council could make a suggestion or statement about traffic calming in TransPlan. Ms. Childs said that the topic fell under Attachment B and added that the topic could be added to the list of project categories that were recommended as additions to TransPlan. Mr. Kelly agreed that there should be an added category for traffic calming. He raised concern over the category of Transportation Improvements Specific to New Development. He was not prepared to support that category without some description of what the term meant. Mr. Reinhard said that the project was similar to the others in that it was a generic category since the Transportation Division did not know what the projects might be and added that there was a estimated amount from systems development charges and assessments to property owners were the two main funding sources. He said that the category would not just be street improvements but might also include wastewater and stormwater systems. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly said that he would support the category with the condition that when the revised draft came out there would be descriptive language added. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to approve Attachment B with the addition of a traffic calming category. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. Childs introduced Mr. Viggiano to discuss Issue Area 5 (Transit). She noted that this was the time to focus on the policies that would be adopted as part of TransPlan. She suggested holding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) implementation questions until a future work session. She noted that the other adopting officials had taken identical positions on the suggested changes, or lack thereof, to the policies. Mr. Viggiano said that the comments on the transit sections had been organized around the four policies. He reviewed each policy. He noted that there were no changes to the policy except for a minor wording change to Transit Policy 2 (BRT policy). Policy 1: Improve transit service and facilities to increase the system's accessability, attractiveness, and convenience for all users including the transportation disadvantaged. Mr. Viggiano said that there was no testimony to change the policy. He noted that there were a number of comments on implementation of the policy involving neighborhood shuttles and with the free fare question. He said that neighborhood shuttles were being looked at as part of the Bus Rapid Transit system. He said that free fares were addressed in a memorandum that was in responses to adopted officials testimony. He noted that the LTD board had taken action to cut youth fares in half. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding whether neighborhood shuttles included the downtown shuttle, Mr. Viggiano said that downtown was considered a special neighborhood that could have its own shuttle. He added that the downtown shuttle was the one being worked on most actively. He said the goal was to have the shuttle in place by fall 2001. Mr. Farr said that a downtown shuttle would serve the goals of the city very well for the future. Under "Fare Reductions," Mr. Kelly expressed a desire to see language added under the policy definition and intent that would indicate topics to be considered. Mr. Rayor asked for Lane Transit District staff to bring its thoughts on the downtown shuttle to the meetings of the Ad hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning. Ms. Childs moved the discussion to Transit Policy 2 (BRT Policy). Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to accept the staff recommendation, which was to replace transit market share with transit mode split in that policy. Mr. Viggiano said the policy would implement the system based on preconditions that it is financially feasible and, if the change was made, that it show an increased transit mode split along the BRT corridors and that local governments demonstrate support. He said that MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 8 Work Session implementation questions could be asked when the project plans and proposals came to the council for approval. Mr. Farr raised concern that the wording of the policies was not understandable to the general public. He stressed the importance of helping the public to make informed decisions about issues they were asked to make choices on. Mr. Meisner said that market share was referring more to ridership. He said that it was actually mode split and not financial market share. He shared Mr. Farr's concerns but said that mode split seemed more possible to give a clear explanation based on the intention of ridership. Mr. Farr recommended that as LTD got closer to implementing the specifics of BRT, LTD staff go into the neighborhoods and share information with the people who would be impacted the most. Ms. Taylor raised concern over the consequences of BRT to streets and neighborhoods. She was not convinced that it would make more people ride buses. She supported neighborhood shuttles and more frequent service. She questioned what a yes vote would mean. Mr. Viggiano said that a yes vote would authorize planners to proceed with planning and design work. He added that the council would have the opportunity to look at each aspect in detail and approve it before it was implemented. Mr. Kelly stressed the importance of adding information on neighborhood feeder services which were part of the success of BRT. Mr. Meisner agreed and said that feeder services were fundamental to the success of BRT. He urged caution with the pilot project because if it did not succeed, no one would want BRT anywhere else. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. Childs moved the discussion to Transit Policy 3. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to approve Transit Policy 3. Mr. Viggiano noted that there was very little public comment on the particular policy. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. Childs moved the discussion to Transit Policy Number 4. Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to approve Transit Policy Number 4. Mr. Viggiano said that LTD's park-and-ride policy was to build fairly small park-and-ride facilities more frequently located along major corridors, rather than very large facilities. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding what LTD meant by "nearby communities," Mr. Viggiano said they would be the outlying communities served by LTD, including Coburg, Junction City, Veneta, McKenzie Bridge. He added that LTD chose to serve an outlying community with a park-and-ride facility that was at the periphery of the urban area that really served the areas beyond that. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 9 Work Session In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding the reason for park-and-ride facilities if shuttle buses were to be implemented, Mr. Viggiano said that people had complex trip needs and found it necessary to use a car for part of their trip but not all of it. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. Childs said that there was a list of suggested new planning and program actions. She did not believe that the other jurisdictions had discussed them but added that it would certainly be appropriate for the council to review the list. Mr. Viggiano said that the LTD board was the only group that spent any time on the list and had actually made a few changes. He said that planning and programming actions were not legally adopted as part of the plan and were less important in terms of making sure there was jurisdictional agreement. Mr. Meisner commented that all of the items on the list were important and stressed that the last entry was an absolute key issue for BRT which was to explore alternatively fueled buses. Mr. Pap8 agreed with Mr. Meisner. He raised concern that there was not enough of a link with rail systems and interstate busing. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Pap8 and suggested improving service frequency for all corridors. Mr. Rayor suggested LTD coordinate more with schools to get more kids riding buses to schools. He suggested that buses advertise this capability. Mr. Kelly raised concern that the funding sources for transportation were generally were roadway constrained. He suggested adding policy language for looking at other funding options. Ms. Childs moved the discussion to bicycle and pedestrian issues. She called the council's attention to page 45 of the meeting packet. She noted the two issues were combined because there was relatively little public testimony. She called the council's attention to Attachment G on page 51 of the meeting packet, which showed a chart that contained that action that other adopting officials had done to date. She also noted that both bicycle and pedestrian policies needed to be approved. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to accept Bicycle Policy Number 1. Mr. Kelly stressed the importance of clarity on what the status of the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan would be after adoption of TransPlan. He called for, and reached, consensus to place it on the agenda for consideration at a future meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to accept Bicycle Policy Number 2. Ms. Taylor commented that off-road bike lanes were preferable where possible and raised concern that requiring bike lanes on some streets was damaging to the neighborhood because of MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 10 Work Session the street widening that it would involve. She raised concern that if the motion were adopted as a general policy there could be negative results. Mr. Meisner strongly emphasized the need for available bike lanes that allowed any cyclist to get anywhere. He supported continuing to require bike lanes along the project routes. Mr. Kelly agreed that off-street bike paths were preferable for convenience and safety, but added that it would be nearly impossible to add off-street bike paths in areas that were already developed. He commented that he would rather have a striped lane on a street than nothing at all. He suggested adding language from the Arterial and Collector Street Plan to the policy regarding that issue. Ms. Childs suggested, to general consensus, that staff take that language from the Arterial and Collector Street plan and put it in the policy definition and intent statement. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding whether having the word "require" in the policy language would mean that every arterial and collector would have to have bike lanes, Mr. Reinhard said that there was a process in the Arterial and Collector Street Plan for exceptions. Mr. Schwetz added that the policy language was taken, almost verbatim, from the State Transportation Planning Rule and as a State regulation it was out of council's hands. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding safety measures for bike lanes, Mr. Reinhard said that there was a tradeoff between the safest kinds of measures. He added that new things were still being tried. Ms. Taylor raised concern over safety levels on on street bike lanes. She expressed a desire to see better crossing measures on streets that were not arterial so that bicyclists could make better use of streets with less traffic. Mr. Meisner urged the council to think about TransPlan as a whole. He commented that if alternate modes of transportation were to be considered, then bikes needed to be able to go anywhere cars went. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment, which was accepted, that the language from the Arterial and Collector Street Plan be added to the definition and intent portion of Bicycle Policy 2. The amended motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to accept Bicycle Policy 3. Mr. Kelly noted that the summary of the public testimony mentioned that a modification would be useful to require bikeway connections to existing as well as new development. He said that he understood that there was no a process to require new bikeways within existing developed areas but called for language in TransPlan stating that it was a priority for jurisdictions to fill gaps in the existing system of connectors. He asked for staff to come up with language before the joint work session that either added to Policy 3 or added a new policy that said that there would be priority given to adding needed bikeways in already developed areas through the CIP or another mechanism. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to accept Pedestrian Policy Number 1. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to accept Pedestrian Policy Number 2. Mr. Rayor raised concern over the term "reasonably direct" in the policy. He commented that the term meant different things to bicyclists and pedestrians. He called for striking the word "reasonably" from the policy. He offered a friendly amendment to the motion to do that. The council accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Meisner expressed the desire to see continuous pedestrian connections completed in the City. Mr. Pap~ commented that the new language would be hard to implement in developed areas. Mr. Rayor stressed the need for strengthening pedestrian connectivity. The amended motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. Childs moved the discussion on to Bicycle projects. Mr. Fart stressed the importance of linking the Bethel Area to the Fern Ridge Bike Path so that there would be safe bicycle access from Bethel to downtown. Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to move Project #435 from the On- Street with Road Project Unprogrammed to the On-Street with Road Project Programed list. Mr. Reinhard suggested that taking action through TransPlan might not work as well as using the Capital Improvement Program process. Mr. Fart withdrew his motion based on that reasoning, but stressed the importance of the project. Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to bring Project #484 into the 20-year list. Mr. Rayor stressed the importance of moving bicycle projects forward. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Kelly, move to recommend Option 1, with respect to the Washington and Jefferson streets and 11th and 13th avenues bike lanes. The motion passed 5:1, with Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Ms. Childs called attention to page 49 of the meeting packet, where there was a recommendation to add three additional projects. There was general consensus from the council to move forward. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 12 Work Session Ms. Childs asked if there was any additional discussion for either the bicycle or pedestrian category. Mr. Rayor raised concern over the lack of required bicycle parking. Ms. Childs indicated that she would get back to him with information. Ms. Childs moved the discussion on to Finance. She noted that there was a memo outlining comments made, by policy, with suggestions for either no change to the policy or listed options. Paul Thompson of Lane Council of Governments noted that the memo went through the five existing policies in TransPlan's finance topic area. He said that Finance Policy 1 stated that TransPlan will support the development of a stable and flexible transportation finance system that provided adequate resources for transportation needs identified in TransPlan. Mr. Thompson said that there was a fair amount of public testimony on the item. He noted that much of the testimony was calling for clearly defined and dedicated funding streams for bicycle and pedestrian and other alternative modes. He said there was also a large body of testimony that called for a dedicated separate stream of support for operations, maintenance and preservation. He noted that some testimony called for full funding of operations, maintenance and preservation before funding of new road facilities or system improvements. Mr. Thompson said that a third major area of testimony on Policy 1 stated that there should be a call for establishment of new locally controlled revenue sources or regional taxes for the transportation system. He noted that there was a list of suggestions in the council packet. Mr. Thompson said that there were two possible options. The first was no change to the policy as it stood. The second was to add a clause to Finance Policy 1 that referenced the need for funding related to nodal development and TDM programs specifically. He said that staff recommended Option 1 at the current time. He said that the policy was consistent with full funding of operations, maintenance and preservation, but noted that it was a revenue source matter to accomplish that. He also noted that the policy was supportive of fully funding alternative modes. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to accept Finance Policy Number 1. Mr. Meisner supported Option 1 because it was less restrictive. Mr. Kelly agreed. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to accept Finance Policy 2. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0 Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to accept Finance Policy 3 with Option 2. Mr. Meisner commented that the motion was consistent with the discussion about taking part in the prioritization process. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 13 Work Session Mr. Farr raised concern over the word "major" in the policy. He wanted to know who decided a project was major. Mr. Arnis responded that major projects generally involved modernization projects such as lane widening or anything with a high cost. Mr. Fart raised concern that the wording allowed the possibility for the City to choose to adopt a different definition of "major." Mr. Kelly said that the policy addressed ©D©T and federal revenue. He added that most typical streets would not get that funding. Ms. Childs pointed out that the word "major" was used in the policy language. She commented that to remain consistent with policy, which spoke to addressing safety and major capacity problems, it would be prudent to add the word, as suggested, under the definition and intent statement. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to accept Finance Policy 4. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to accept Finance Policy 5. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. Childs moved the discussion on to new finance policies. She noted that there were three suggestions that were found on packet page 60. Mr. Kelly commented that there was a lot of State and federal funding that was roadway- dedicated and called for a finance policy that local jurisdictions would seek changes in current restrictions on state and federal transportation funding. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to add a new policy that would state "Local jurisdictions will seek changes in current restrictions in State and federal transportation funding." Mr. Kelly commented that he was trying to broaden new Finance Policy 1 in that local jurisdictions wished the State and federal jurisdictions were more flexible in how local governments used the money they were allocated. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He said that new Policy 1 did not go far enough and added that the gas tax was not the only source of funds with the kinds of restrictions that kept local jurisdictions from using the funds most effectively. Mr. Fart supported the motion because he believed in giving as much authority to local jurisdictions as possible. Mr. Pap~ offered a friendly amendment, that was accepted, to add the County to the jurisdictions in the motion. The amended motion passed unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 14 Work Session Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to accept new Policy 3, which committed funding to bicycle infrastructure based on bike ridership as a percentage of total trips. Mr. Kelly commented that there was no policy language. He called for clarification on what the policy would or would not do. He raised concern that any policy would either shod-change bicycle funding or come up with so much money that it could not be usefully spent. He said that he would rather meet the intent of the motion by adding to the project list. Mr. Rayor agreed with Mr. Kelly. Mr. Meisner opposed the motion. The motion failed, 5:1, with Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mr. Rayor commented that there should be a policy that committed adequate funding to bike infrastructure. He said that the problem was the formulation of such a policy. He asked if there was a way to frame a policy that could bring some of the nonprogrammed items into the programmed list, thereby moving up the schedule. Mr. Carlson said that there was some systems development charge funds that could be made available to some of the long range bike projects. The council asked staff to come back with a rewrite of new Policy 3. C. Executive Session Mayor Torrey called an executive session for the purpose of discussing the possible sale of real property. The executive session was held pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 192.660 (1)(e), which allowed the council to meet in executive session to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions. Mayor Torrey recused himself from the executive session due to a conflict of interest. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 15 Work Session