Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/10/05 WS M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall August 10, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the August 10, 2005, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION; City Council Priority Issue – Launch Neighborhood Initiative City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, noting the work session was the last of the initial staff presentations on action plans to implement or address the City Council’s eight priority issues. He complimented Public Works Department Director Kurt Corey and his team for the hard work they did on the action plan under consideration. Mr. Corey underscored that this presentation was staff’s attempt at providing information back to the council that had been generally garnered from the comments made at the council’s two-day retreat held in February. He hoped that when it reached the point of adoption, it would truly be the council’s plan. He reviewed the process by which the plan had been formulated and listed the interdepartmental staff representatives that were engaged in the process, as follows: ? Larry Hill, Senior Management Analyst for the Finance Division; ? Matt Shuler, Deputy Fire Chief; ? Renée Grube, Recreation Services Director for the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department; ? Beth Bridges, Neighborhood Manager for the Planning and Development Department; ? Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department; ? Lieutenant Rex Barrong, Eugene Police Department; ? Fred McVey, Engineering Data Services Manager for the Public Works Department; ? Carolyn Weiss, Landscape Architect for the Parks and Open Space Division of Public Works; ? Lisa Gardner, Senior Transportation Planner for the Public Works Department; ? Eric Johnson, Surface Operations Manager for the Public Works Department; ? Roland Hoskins, Management Analyst for the Public Works Department. Mr. Corey noted that Mr. Hoskins served as staff lead for the project, and was responsible for assembling the ideas and pulling the plan together. He acknowledged the work of the group, which met every Wednesday for three months to develop the plan being presented to the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Corey stated that the group conducted an internal audit of current activities and reviewed the best management practices from several other cities that adopted neighborhood strategic plans - cities such as Albany, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and San José, California. The group held brainstorming sessions in an effort to add to the council comments and information provided from past neighborhood discussions, Neighborhood Leadership Council (NLC) meetings, and the collective expertise of the assembled staff. Mr. Corey directed councilors to a spreadsheet posted on the wall which indicated the different comments and how they had been organized and information extrapolated from them to form primary objectives. He reported that the group used a dot exercise to conduct preliminary prioritization and ultimately identified 39 individual action steps. He reviewed Attachment A: Council Strategic Priorities Action Plan Launch Neighborhood Initiative, specifically the Planning Horizon and Focus and the Strategic Priority Outcomes and the respective timelines. He stressed that all of the implementation was dependent on resources being put into place to accomplish the tasks. In reviewing the list in the Action Plan, Mr. Corey said there were at least 30 fairly significant activities underway. He acknowledged that there was much work to do but wanted to emphasize the importance of recognizing the efforts already being made. He pointed out that the resource key was subjective and activities requiring less than $50,000 were generally considered low resource and those estimated up to $100,000 were considered medium and those over that amount or involving Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees would be considered to require a large resource. Continuing, Mr. Corey acknowledged the criticism received about the lack of neighborhood outreach in putting the plan together. He shared his response to the criticism: that this was the “first cut” at the council’s plan and this type of outreach would be a logical component to this plan. He stressed that this was the beginning point and not the ending point and that there was no desire to exclude neighborhood groups. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Mr. Kelly appreciated the good work in the plan and the merging of ideas “of a lot of folks.” He felt there were a number of problems as well. He wanted the revision of the plan to include outreach to the NLC and neighborhood organization about the revisions. He opined that the plan was “an embarrassment of riches” and wanted the plan to have a more narrowed focus. He noted that much of the focus of the council retreat in this regard had been on the Police Department and Planning and Development, with some focus on Public Works but to a lesser extent. He cited Item 14, sidewalk infill, as an action item that could be taken off the list. Mr. Kelly observed a synergy between the second theme, Enhance Public Engagement Activities, and the third theme, Support Neighborhood Involvement in Problem Solving. He thought enhancement of the role of neighborhood associations through empowerment would raise public involvement because people would think participation in such an association would give them the opportunity to make a difference. Mr. Kelly called the outcomes for Phase 1 “way too fluffy.” He wished to see outcomes that tied back to the three themes. Mr. Papé observed that the plan was an ambitious start. He agreed that it could be too broad in scope, but said he preferred to dream big and then cut back. He commented that some of the items, while they might include or touch on neighborhoods, might be better addressed on a citywide basis. He cited numbers 21 through 23, which addressed diversity in communities, as something that did not specifically involve MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 2 Work Session neighborhood associations and might be addressed through an entity such as the Human Rights Commission. Mr. Corey explained that these items were in response to council comments about getting “more people to the table” than the few who were typically involved in such activities today. While Mr. Papé supported reaching out to a broader circle of people, he was uncertain whether this goal should be part of the neighborhood initiative. In response to another question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Corey explained that the focus on infill was in response to the planning aspects of the comments that were made and the ongoing review of land uses. He felt it was a higher level “generic” response to those comments. Mr. Papé asked Mr. Corey to speak to Action Step 6, having to do with scoping projects. Mr. Corey said scoping projects had been completed in two neighborhoods and at the highest level were activities that brought into focus the priorities of the individual neighborhoods. He stated it was a resource-intensive activity and the City had 17 neighborhoods left “to go” if this scoping should continue. Mr. Papé asked it this touched on updating neighborhood plans. Mr. Corey asked Planning Division Manager Susan Muir to respond. Ms. Muir stated that the scoping could lead to making such a list. Ms. Bridges clarified that the scoping projects had taken a different approach to neighborhood refinement plans as they did not have the same land use standing as a refinement plan. She said it was a way for the different stakeholders in a neighborhood to come together and identify the service needs that they had and to identify some priorities such as whether to build sidewalks or bicycle paths. She noted that these projects had been completed in the West University and the Bethel neighborhoods. Mr. Papé ascertained from Ms. Bridges that the City could not undertake further scoping projects using the available resources. Regarding Action Item 9, Mr. Papé opined that it would be good to identify the neighborhood-based services it referred to in order to ensure that the City could deliver the resource-intensive services. He thought that the City should start with neighborhoods to which it could deliver services. Ms. Taylor commented that the best thing in the plan was an increase in funding for neighborhood newsletters. She averred that the plan seemed to encompass “everything that the City does.” She sought to find ways to get citizens more involved in their neighborhoods in order to better facilitate communication and the flow of information between citizens and the City. She remarked that more involvement might lead to more contentiousness but this development could have a positive influence on City government. She wished to focus on a higher level of involvement and not a higher level of satisfaction. Ms. Taylor related that she had been concerned initially that all of the information was from staff and none was from the neighborhood leaders. She thought that the plan should start with what the City thought it should do and then work with what the neighborhood leaders thought the initiative should do. She shared her shock in seeing the citizen involvement plan. She opined it was a backward move and should not be counted as an achievement given that the City had dissolved the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC). She thought a good step to take would be to reactivate the CIC. Continuing, Ms.Taylor suggested that the council start ridding the list of items, as the plan was unwieldy. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman thanked staff for the progress that had been made on opportunity siting and the Safe Parks plan, which increased police bicycle patrols in the City’s park areas, both goals she held for the neighbor- hood initiative. She averred that neighborhoods and downtown businesses were very grateful for the officers. She felt the City had begun to make some progress on what had been her personal intent when she put this goal on the table. Ms. Bettman called the list exhaustive. She asked that everything the organization was already doing be taken off the list. She thought there should be differentiation between neighborhoods and neighborhood associations. When formulating the goal, she had neighborhoods in mind in terms of livability. She believed healthy neighborhoods to be the fundamental building blocks to a healthy city. She recommended beginning with an overarching value that explored how this livability could be preserved and enhanced. She observed that things such as density, infill, commercial development, and transportation projects had the capacity to enhance or degrade a neighborhood. Mr. Pryor appreciated the effort that gone into the plan and agreed with comments suggesting the plan should be more focused. He remarked that when thinking about neighborhoods and the City’s role in them, he thought about the people and the City’s relationship and partnership with them. He felt these areas should be the ones on which to focus the most energy. He liked what was said in the proposed plan regarding public engagement and efforts to try to create greater outreach in the community. He said while the general population of the neighborhoods should help to bring the initiative to fruition, the neighborhood associations had an important role in getting those individuals involved. He wanted to work on strategies to ensure the City was in contact with everyone. He commented that it was a “struggle” to find out what happy people think because usually the council only heard from unhappy people and quality information would include both. He agreed that disagreements were healthy, but averred that the purpose of disagreement was to reach a resolution. He liked the focus on service delivery. Mr. Poling thanked staff for all the time and effort that had gone into the plan. He agreed that the plan was too broad and almost overwhelming. He concurred with Mr. Pryor’s sentiments regarding involvement of neighborhood residents through neighborhood associations in order to get more people in the city involved with what was going on. Mayor Piercy said the density of the information was an interesting way for the council and staff to see all of the relationships between the things that happen in the neighborhoods and all of the things the City did to reach out into the neighborhoods. She supported helping the neighborhood organizations be as “strong as the City could assist them in being” so that they feel empowered to be a significant part of the decision- making process in the community. She hoped the City could provide trainings for neighborhood organiza- tions because it was sometimes difficult to run a meeting so that people with different points of view felt they were participating and being heard. Regarding diversity, Mayor Piercy thought the City should talk with neighborhood associations about strategies to engage more people and what they might do to help bring more people in. She observed that the associations wanted membership to be representative of neighborhood diversity. She opined that some of the neighborhood associations had become too big. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly agreed that neighborhood livability was critical. He averred that if the initiative worked the way it was intended, it would strengthen the neighborhood associations by increasing involvement. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly recommended that Action Item 1, the development of a Neighborhood-based Community Policing Strategy, involve the participation of neighborhood associations. Regarding Action Item 4, the suggestion to shift neighborhood involvement to an earlier point in the land use process, Mr. Kelly felt this would reduce contentiousness. He related that the City of Albany utilized a program that required a pre-development meeting between a developer and neighborhood residents. Mr. Kelly felt that Action Item 6, the neighborhood scoping projects, could serve as a tie-in to opportunity mapping and the growth density allocation that was discussed recently. He added that a scope without a land use aspect with legal weight would “just sit on a shelf.” Mr. Papé reiterated that he wanted the City to be careful not to make promises of neighborhood-based services (as specified in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan) it did not have the resources to deliver. Mr. Papé thought the focus of the initiative should be participation by the neighborhood associations. He hoped that the larger neighborhood associations would split into appropriately smaller groups. He wanted to determine if the City had every house and area identified as being part of a specific neighborhood associa- tion and whether the associations were effective. He appreciated action items 30 through 35, which sought to enhance the role of neighborhood associations. He concurred with Mayor Piercy’s recommendation that the City provide training that would enhance the functionality of the associations. Ms. Bettman opined that people would participate with neighborhood associations when they knew their time and effort would make a difference. She noted, in regard to scoping, that the NLC had scoped each neighborhood in 2004 and had talked about their priority issues in a subsequent document. She thought the City could cooperate with the neighborhoods to perform their own scoping. Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for its work and acknowledged the amount of effort that had gone into the proposed plan. She shared Ms. Bettman’s sentiments regarding “getting buy-in” from the communities. She averred that if the neighborhoods were not interested in participating, the City may as well not pursue the initiative. Mayor Piercy called for a third round of comments and questions. Mr. Kelly cited Action Item 24, regarding the Citizen Involvement Strategic Plan, and observed that much good staff work had gone into the first iteration of it and he opined that most of the work went “nowhere.” He thought the item could be eliminated. Mr. Kelly thought Action Item 25, which sought to include feedback to participants in project plans, raised a good point and helped people to feel they have been heard. Mr. Kelly echoed Mr. Papé’s comments on action items 30 through 35. Regarding Action Item 30, he encouraged the inclusion of the NLC. He recalled that on occasion the NLC was not considered an official entity of the City and asked that it become one. In closing, Mr. Kelly opined that it was an embarrassment to see the elimination of the CIC “touted almost as if it was progress.” He agreed with Ms. Taylor that it should be reestablished. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked for more specificity in the outcomes, such as ‘active and successful collaboration with affected neighborhoods with transportation development, parks, and public safety issues’ and ‘higher long- term residency and home ownership.’ She wished to see the phrase ‘less contentiousness around develop- ment applications’ changed to ‘residents and neighborhoods support development applications.’ Ms. Bettman asked staff to review a proposal written by Joseph Cunningham. Ms. Bettman remarked that minimization of conversions from residential uses to commercial uses had remained unaddressed. Mr. Papé commented that the CIC was intended to have a greater function than neighborhood associations. He did not see that as a neighborhood goal. Mr. Corey stated that the plan would be brought before the council for further consideration and adoption at later dates. He felt neighborhood input would be appropriate when the plan was aligned more closely with the council priorities. Mayor Piercy recognized Mr. Kelly for the last round of comments. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff send an email to the neighborhood leaders explaining this first step in the process. B. WORK SESSION: Programming of Surface Transportation Program-Urban Funds City Manager Taylor stated that City Engineer Mark Schoening was present to review the project list for funds to be programmed by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). Mr. Schoening reviewed the information in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) regarding the Programming of Surface Transportation Program-Urban Funds. He said the schedule had been complicated by the air quality assessment and the work of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). He explained that Attachment A Preservation and Modernization and Planning and Project Development Project List delineated the projects. Mr. Schoening stated that the modernization project on Game Farm Road had already been budgeted. He explained that a change in the funding source required that it be brought back before the council. He said, if successful, the federal funds would replace systems development charges (SDCs) and would fill the gap where other funds had previously been identified, thought to come from Springfield and/or the County. He noted that the project had been identified in part because of the synergy with the County’s project on Game Farm Road, the City’s project to extend Chad Drive, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) project to replace the bridges over Game Farm Road. Mr. Schoening reviewed the preservation projects on the list. He explained that the transportation planning activity continued the past practice of securing funds for such activities which he predicted would become critical as the County had, in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Capital Plan, discontinued the City/County partnership money, approximately $1 million. He stated that the list indicated the projects the City wanted to submit applications for. He reported that the MPC would review the recommendations of the Transporta- MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 6 Work Session tion Planning Committee (TPC) on August 11; the application period began then and would end on August 22. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Bettman felt the inclusion of the policies regarding street preservation indicated some progress had been made. She opined that the Game Farm Road project diverted from the City’s original intent on how it would be funded. She observed that the bulk of the project was outside of the city limits. Mr. Schoening clarified that the bulk of the project was within Eugene city limits. Ms. Bettman recalled that some funding was slated to come from the City of Springfield and the County. Mr. Schoening explained that the City anticipated securing funding from the County and/or Springfield. He noted that the portion from the mid-line of Interstate 5 was in the City of Springfield. Ms. Bettman asked if Springfield was not paying for its portion. Mr. Schoening responded that the City of Eugene could ask that Springfield pay, but all entities in the metropolitan area worked together in the regional process that regarded Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funding. Ms. Bettman observed that $225,000 was originally slated to come from Lane County Road Funds and $125,000 in assessments had been reduced to $42,000. She declared the project to be inconsistent with the City’s policies because it was a capacity upgrade and because it would not be built to the City’s standards. Mr. Schoening explained that the northern part of the road was outside the urban growth boundary (UGB). He noted that it would be similar to the way Delta Highway had been built between Green Acres Drive and Ayres Road, as that transportation facility had an urban section on the east side and a rural section on the west side. Ms. Bettman reiterated her assertion that the project was inconsistent with City policy. She did not believe the City should take up its ability to compete for money to build projects that were important to the City of Eugene by building projects that were important to Lane County and Springfield, when the County and Springfield were not contributing. She objected to using the funding sources for this project, calling it “misguided.” Regarding the planning money, Ms. Bettman observed that it had been increased by $105,000 per year. She questioned why there was such a “huge” jump in funding. Mr. Schoening replied that it was a difference between what was being asked for and what the City was likely to receive. He underscored that the City was asking for all of the funds for which it was eligible, but did not anticipate receiving the full amount. He noted that the City received $125,000 for planning each of the last three years. He added that Lane County, Lane Transit District (LTD), and Coburg had not asked for planning dollars during the last funding iteration, but would be making that request in the next round of funding. Ms. Bettman remarked that it was difficult to determine if this project was the best one for the City when it was the only one being reviewed. Mr. Poling asked how the Game Farm Road modernization project had been determined to be at the top of the priority list. Mr. Schoening replied that the council adopted a capital budget with the project in it, so there was a sense that some sort of prioritization placed it there over other projects. He said, based on the existing scoring criteria, it was felt that the project would score highly. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Poling asked if money allocated to modernization projects could be reallocated to preservation projects. Mr. Schoening responded that it would take an action by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) to make such a change. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Schoening explained that STP-U money allocated to this modernization project would be reallocated to the next highest priority project on the list should the council not approve it. Mr. Poling asked if the City of Eugene had another project for consideration on the list. Mr. Schoening replied that there was no other project in the queue for this iteration of funding and removal of the Game Farm Road project would release that funding for a project in another jurisdiction. Mr. Poling asked if the work on the Chad Drive project, should it be approved, would be conducted in conjunction with the extension work that was already approved. Mr. Schoening affirmed that the work could be coordinated. Mr. Kelly opined that the proposal made at the MPC meeting the previous month to program only one year of funding and allocate 20 percent to modernization projects was the “best the City could hope to get.” He believed an attempt to lower it from there would have been a losing battle. Mr. Kelly said he was “troubled” by the Game Farm Road project. He asked Ms. Bettman if there was a bigger project she would prefer or if she wished for the City to sit out this round of funding. He also wished to ask staff about the money allocated for planning. He asked what fund was paying for the planning at this point. Mr. Schoening replied that it came from the Road Fund moneys that went into the operating budget. Mr. Kelly commented that he would prefer to lower the amount requested but did not want to “eat up” more Road Fund dollars. Mr. Papé concurred with concerns expressed about the Game Farm Road project. He asked why the whole road was not being done and if it was not a priority for the County. Mr. Schoening assured him that the other portion of the road was under construction at present by the County. He said the City’s work would complete the last piece of it. He noted that ODOT was planning to replace the bridges as part of its bridge replacement program and indicated a willingness to add this project as a change order. City Manager Taylor added that this was one reason it scored so well and that working in tandem with ODOT and the County benefited the City by helping to control costs. Mr. Papé asked for clarification on why half of the road would be built to County standards and the other half to City standards. Mr. Schoening stated that the pavement standards of the road would be consistent, but the County side would not have a sidewalk and the drainage would be directed into the ditch rather than routed with curbs and gutters. Mr. Papé asked who developed the scoring system. Mr. Schoening said the staff of all the participating agencies could develop a proposal for changing the scoring at the direction of elected officials. Mr. Papé asked how a higher priority could be given for pavement preservation. Mr. Schoening explained that the current criteria came from TransPlan policies and focused on alternative modes. He said the removal and replacement of asphalt between the curbs had a tendency “not to score a lot of points.” Mr. Papé asked for a memorandum on the scoring criteria. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Papé asked what amount in gross dollars was allocated to planning for the region. Mr. Schoening replied that it was a little over $2 million. Mr. Papé opined that Eugene seemed to be asking for a small “piece of the pot.” In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Schoening explained that Game Farm Road was fairly close to the Beltline Highway/Interstate 5 interchange project and the site where ODOT planned to replace bridges, and because of this the City had been integrating with ODOT to conduct the projects efficiently. He said the ODOT interchange project would not affect the Game Farm Road project. Ms. Taylor felt encouraged to see all of the preservation projects. She wondered if there was a good chance that the projects would go through. Mr. Schoening replied that the development of good criteria that focused on arterial and collector streets could improve the chances. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Schoening assured her that the City of Eugene was entirely responsible for choosing which modernization projects to submit. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of questions and comments. Ms. Bettman called the assertion that an external entity made the decision on what projects to submit “nothing but pretense.” She alleged that Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County staff made the matrix and chose which projects to submit. She opined that all the elected officials needed to do was to say ‘no’ once or twice and staff would “get the message” that the policy should be upheld. She approved of the list of preservation projects, as that was the City’s highest priority. She felt there was no guarantee that staff members would prioritize them when they “got into that little room to make the decision” unless the council said that was what it wanted. Ms. Bettman agreed that the council had adopted the Game Farm Road project when adopting its capital project list, but she noted that the funding mechanism had changed. She questioned the “pretend matrix.” Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve the attached list of projects for submittal of applications for federal Surface Transportation Program-Urban funds for FY07-FY09 to be programmed by the Metropolitan Policy Committee. Mr. Kelly felt preservation projects had more chance for funding now than they had a few years earlier. He said should ideas held by the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) on how funding was allocated remain unchanged, there would be a little over $5 million available for the whole region over three years. He observed that because the list of preservation projects being put forward totaled over $8 million, it would likely be “whittled at.” Mr. Schoening responded that the actual funding totaled $14 million because part of the criteria was that the City provided a local match to the STP-U funding. Mr. Schoening said one of the reasons the list was broad was that the scoring criteria was uncertain at this point. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Schoening affirmed that the federal rules prohibited the MPC from dividing the money up by jurisdiction because of the region’s designation as a transportation management area. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Kelly observed that the projects came from a collective decision made by staff and elected officials but jurisdictions were unable to take the money and use it independently. He commented that while he saw value in the Game Farm Road project, he would likely support Ms. Bettman’s intended amendment to remove it from the list. He called this work “horse trading.” He imagined that if Eugene did not compete for the “modernization pie” and Springfield received more than its fair share of that money, the other jurisdictions might be inclined to give Eugene more than its fair share of the preservation money. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to remove Surface Transportation Program-Urban money from the Game Farm Road project. Ms. Bettman averred that the amendment would not stop the project. She noted that previously $125,000 in assessments had been identified and that amount had fallen to $42,000. She said the policy that dictated that people living adjacent to such improvements must be assessed was “hard and fast.” She saw no reason to reduce the assessments. She reiterated that the project could go forward but would have to “revert to its original funding mechanism.” She agreed with Mr. Kelly’s assertion that this would make a statement that would motivate the MPC to allocate more preservation funding to the City of Eugene. Mr. Papé asked how subjective the criteria were. Mr. Schoening responded that it would be disingenuous to say there was no discussion between jurisdictions but he would not characterize it as “horse trading.” He felt this characterization overstated the discussion at the TPC and the MPC. He underscored that as transportation dollars became “tighter” other jurisdictions had their eyes on the planning money and other resources and competition became stiff. Mr. Papé surmised that there was a large amount of subjectivity put into the scoring system. Ms. Solomon felt it would be irresponsible to not apply for modernization dollars. She averred that the project met the goal to improve transportation in the system and it would ultimately take some of the traffic demand from the Coburg Road/Beltline Highway interchange. She believed that the voters expected the City to collaborate with its partners. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes, and Mr. Papé, Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposi- tion. Mayor Piercy voted against the amendment and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Schoening explained that he had looked at the unified planning work program and how much staff resource the City of Eugene used to implement its portion of it. Then he looked at the scoring criteria which allocated points for matching up to a 50 percent match. He stated what was requested was 50 percent of what the City of Eugene used to implement the unified planning work program, assuming that the City would put in a 50 percent match from the Road Fund to gain the maximum number of points. He added that the larger problem was that 20 percent of $10.5 million did not cover everyone’s planning needs in the region. Mr. Papé asked how the money was allocated, assuming $720,000 per year went into planning. Mr. Schoening replied that it was allocated by the MPC on a recommendation from the TPC using the criteria established for all of the categories. Mr. Kelly indicated he would oppose the main motion. He averred that failure of the amendment ran counter to the sort of discussion the City Council had in the past on strategies to increase road preservation funding. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Papé appreciated the amendment but remained concerned that this body had staff working on this Game Farm Road project. He felt that reversing it and putting “asunder” all of the planning and work done by staff at the council’s previous direction was not prudent. Ms. Bettman opined that using STP-U money for this project was a “drastic reversal of course.” Mr. Kelly remarked that he did not support the amendment in order to slow down or stop the Game Farm Road project. He noted that the council had already approved it with a different funding mechanism. Ms. Solomon asked Mr. Schoening to describe the original funding proposal. Mr. Schoening explained that the total budget had been $638,000, of which $225,000 was listed as from other sources and $125,000 was to be paid for from assessments. He said in reevaluating the project, it was determined that less of the project was assessable to adjacent property owners. The remainder of the funding was to come from transportation SDCs. Ms. Solomon remarked that the project funding did not look like a reconfiguration of funding to her. Mayor Piercy conveyed her commitment to getting preservation dollars targeted through her work on the MPC. She stressed her willingness to work with the council to ensure that the policies the council put in place were adhered to. She was not convinced that the Game Farm Road was not the right project to submit as a modernization project. She averred that staff knew the council priorities and how the dollars were to be used. The main motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in opposi- tion. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 11 Work Session