Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/08/09 Work SessionMINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street — Eugene, Oregon July 8, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Work Session of the Eugene City Council. A. WORK SESSION: Urban Renewal Mike Sullivan, Director of the Community Development Division, showed a supplement to the Register - Guard from 1972 that introduced the downtown mall to the community. He pointed out that this demonstrated that the City had been talking about the downtown for many years. Amanda Nobel Flannery, Loan Analyst for the Community Development Division, stated that the presentation was a follow -up on the City Council discussion of May 20 on downtown urban renewal projects, financial requirements, and the plan amendment process. She stated that these topics were part of a larger discussion on local economic development. She underscored that actions taken to encourage development and redevelopment in the downtown boosted the health of the urban core and contributed to the economic health of the community. Ms. Nobel Flannery said the May discussion had also included a plan amendment to increase the spending limit and the council had asked for specificity on such projects. She stated that staff had put together two potential projects as a "test run" of the type and scope of information they could provide before the plan amendment process was initiated in August. She noted that they would also review the timeline and the draft public involvement plan in order to garner feedback from the councilors. Ms. Nobel Flannery provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Economic Development & Downtown, hard copies of which were provided to everyone present. She began with the list of the potential projects, which included the two examples to be used for the present work session: Park Blocks improvements and local business assistance. She noted that the details she intended to review were included in Attachment F in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). She explained that the Park Blocks projects were those on the list of improvements from the Park Blocks Master Plan that were not yet implemented due to unavailability of funding. She underscored that the list of improvements would not come before the council for approval until future conversations with the council, the community, and stakeholders had been undertaken. Ms. Nobel Flannery stated that the Park Blocks projects also had a boundary issue that the council would have to address, as the East Block was not within the urban renewal district boundary. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Nobel Flannery discussed the local business assistance, her other example for how urban renewal funding could be used. She said one way funding could be allocated would be through matching grants that could be made available immediately and then would operate on an ongoing basis until funds were depleted or until Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. She showed a slide of a local building that would potentially seek to make improvements that would result in a 50 percent reduction in annual energy costs, noting that currently it was difficult for business owners to go into the financial market and borrow money. Continuing, Ms. Nobel Flannery reviewed the timeline. She noted that the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) planned to meet in the following week on July 16 to start the discussion on specific projects and to help staff formulate a recommendation. She outlined the draft public involvement plan, which would be submitted to the Planning Commission for final approval before final implementation. Ms. Taylor was "very disturbed" that the council was "rushing to do something" in the summertime. She averred that people had surprise summer guests, which diverted their attention, or were going on vacation. She felt that staff assumed the council would approve of this, noting that it would go before the ERAC in the next week. She remarked that ERAC was not a governmental body; she thought it had been intended to be a temporary committee appointed by the Mayor. Ms. Nobel Flannery clarified that the ERAC was a departmental advisory committee. Ms. Taylor opined that all of the information in the AIS assumed that the council would "do all these things" and would increase the debt limit and expand the boundaries. She felt the council should hold a work session to discuss whether the council even wanted to continue having an urban renewal district. She recalled the popular vote against the last proposed increase to the debt limit for an urban renewal project. She remarked that urban renewal money had been utilized to put in the pedestrian mall and then to remove it again. Ms. Taylor averred that the money "came from somewhere." She said whether it came from state or local school funds, it was still from school funds. She asked how much of the urban renewal money would go to the General Fund. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that the ERAC had been written into the plan, as directed by the City Council, as the initial step in this process. Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager, stated that the information regarding urban renewal money was contained in Attachment B in the AIS. She said with delinquencies and discounts, the amount that would have gone into the General Fund in FY09 was approximately $800,000. Mr. Poling observed that in order to have a discussion on whether or not the council wanted to pursue this, they had to go through a certain process. He said what they were doing at the present meeting was the first step. He underscored that they did not know what the outcome would be at this point. He averred that the fact that it was summertime was no different than other times of the year; the government "goes on 365 days a year." He declared that they had taken on this job to get things accomplished. He was happy with the timeline from July to October as he felt it gave everyone who wanted to get involved the opportunity to do so. Nonetheless, he predicted that when the council arrived at its decision point, there would be a "flurry" of people saying, "Oh, my gosh. When did this happen ?" He wanted to get the word out at every opportunity that this was the time to participate in this discussion. He reiterated that the council could not make a decision until the process was completed. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Brown said he would like to see the division of the tax impact on overlapping tax districts over the course of a plan. He commented that the projects did not seem compelling. He predicted that if they asked the citizens, they would wonder why the City would choose to use urban renewal money for the Park Blocks. He also believed that the City was doing a fine job of providing business assistance with its other programs. He was not convinced that this was an appropriate expenditure of urban renewal funds. Mayor Piercy agreed that the council would have to find compelling projects. She remarked that they also could not talk about losing money until they had it. She pointed out that if something was not built, it never generated tax revenue. She hoped the council would have a real discussion on how it would tie whatever it decided to pursue with the Council Goals. Ms. Ortiz observed that the council had often engaged in the conversation on whether an urban renewal district was valuable or not. She stressed that at the state level, the schools received their money. Ms. Ortiz expressed her appreciation for the staff work that had gone into the presentation. She considered the Park Blocks improvement to be a good project. She also supported business assistance to improve energy efficiency. She said the older buildings in the downtown needed to be upgraded. She opined that increasing their energy efficiency was better than "letting them rot" or tearing them down. Regarding concern over discussing this in the summer, Ms. Ortiz felt the timeline would give adequate time for anyone who had an interest in participating to provide input. Mr. Pryor said the question was what outcome did they want to see occur and what would it look like. He was certain that if the council did not participate at all there would still be an outcome, but he was not sure what it would look like. He added his feeling that the timeline was "fine." He hoped the input and deliberation would help guide the council in its decision on what way to go in its financial planning. He wanted the process to say not only that the City had these mechanisms and what did people think of them, but also what the people wanted to have downtown. He wanted to make sure the City received the maximum outcome for money spent. Mr. Clark echoed Mr. Pryor's points. He wanted to gain more specificity about the longer term outcome and goal. He wanted to explore what the City wanted to achieve and whether urban renewal was the best way to achieve it. He added his appreciation for the staff work that had gone into the presentation. Mr. Clark was interested in the answer to the question that Mr. Brown had raised regarding whether urban renewal had worked. He was, in general terms, in favor of the Multiple -Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) because if the applicant received a tax break for a period of years then the City received more money from a long -term increase to the tax base. His understanding of urban renewal was that the City would essentially be borrowing on the future increase in taxes in order to build now what the City would like to have, with the assumption that those taxes would increase. He was challenged in that the projects they ended up building did not seem to increase the tax base. He did not want it to be construed that he did not consider what had been built to be good – urban renewal projects included the Hult Center for the Performing Arts and the Eugene Public Library – but he did not have a clear sense of whether tax increment financing had been a successful tool in Eugene for increasing tax revenue. Mayor Piercy noted that the packet materials included a list of tax paying projects. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Zelenka wanted to emphasize that the council was at the start of a process. He stressed that it was not a "done deal" and the outcome would be a plan. He did agree that August was a bad time to conduct public involvement. He said if he were revising the plan, he would shift the public involvement out to September. He also wished to note that there was not a one -to -one relationship between school funding and urban renewal. He felt it was confusing to people to say this. Mr. Zelenka thought some of the projects were in the public's interest. He noted that the steam generation facility operated by the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) was slated to shut down within the next five years and downtown business owners needed to find another way to heat their buildings. He stated that this would be expensive and difficult and would have environmental consequences. He felt it would behoove them to ensure that it was done well. He had been impressed by the list of private businesses that had benefited from urban renewal monies, such as the Downtown Athletic Club and the U.S. Bank Building, among others. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Sullivan to speak to the list of projects and the tax value they brought to the City. Mr. Sullivan responded that the list spoke for itself. He said the loan money had been used to improve the cultural value of the downtown as well as the tax value of the downtown. Ms. Taylor opined that the council should be provided a list of things urban renewal had "destroyed." She asserted that the tax revenue came to the City when the urban renewal district was terminated. Mr. Sullivan clarified that there was a continuous flow of tax revenue; the new value that had been achieved through urban renewal came onto the tax rolls when the district ended. Ms. Taylor ascertained that the downtown renewal district had been in existence since 1968. She thought if they had more money in the General Fund, the City could do other things. She thought the City could build a restroom downtown, which she felt was essential, using General Fund money. She did not feel that projects had to come from urban renewal. She asserted that urban renewal made it easier to spend the money without people being aware of it. She acknowledged that there was a limit on the expenditures. Ms. Taylor did not want to find projects that made people want to have an urban renewal district. She felt that if they had projects that needed to be done, they should then find out how to get the money for it. She noted that urban renewal was listed on property tax bills; people could see how much they were paying for it. In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that the last year of the special levy for the library had been FY08 and it could not be revived. Mr. Brown suggested that the City extend the downtown zone to the PeaceHealth Clinic and "shave off' the University of Oregon portion. He understood that the University did not pay city taxes. Ms. Cutsogeorge confirmed that the Riverfront District can no longer be expanded and that state statutes did not allow the City to cut University property from the urban renewal district and other property. Mr. Brown asked if the City collected taxes from the Riverfront Research Park. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the City collected from the privately -owned land but not from the publicly -owned land. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Poling said the two examples on the list were potential projects and, as a result of the public process, some of the projects would fall off and other projects could be brought forward. He also felt that the process could result in no plan and that the urban renewal district could be allowed "to die." He pointed out that the proposed potential increase in the urban renewal debt limit was a very different discussion than the highly politicized measure that had been voted down. He predicted that the council would get very different types of information with the current discussion than it had in the larger more contentious issue. Mr. Pryor acknowledged that the Hult Center did not have a direct connection with the tax base, but if an improvement to the downtown resulted in the construction of other amenities, this also provided an indirect increase to the tax base. Mr. Zelenka understood that the tools available to the council to "do things" to improve downtown were limited. He noted that they were mostly centered on property tax exemptions and other than that there were no other financial tools to enable some of the projects they were talking about other than urban renewal funds. He said while eliminating the urban renewal district would mean that monies there would go back to the General Fund, that fund had so many "pressures" on it, the funds would be diverted to things other than the projects needed to benefit the downtown area. He averred that the outcome he was seeking was to make the downtown better. He agreed that some past urban renewal projects had not worked. He felt that a public involvement process should include a question asking what they should do to make the downtown better. He believed that the answers to that question might result in projects that would make the downtown better and would provide the City with an urban renewal plan that would revitalize the downtown cultural area and increase the tax base. He thought having a compelling list of projects would be the way to promote public interest in the urban renewal work. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Nobel Flannery stated that a public vote was not required to increase the debt limit or to extend the boundary of an urban renewal district. Mr. Zelenka ascertained from Ms. Nobel Flannery that, though a public vote was not required, the public could force a referendum on such a decision. He thought the urban renewal district should remain limited and that the council should have a specific idea of what they wanted out of the process. Mr. Brown asked what specific changes the legislature had made to urban renewal, as referenced on page 8 of the AIS. City Attorney Glenn Klein offered to provide the councilors with a memorandum on this. He noted that the changes were focused on the way maximum indebtedness would work going forward. Mr. Brown disagreed that the tools to renew the downtown area were limited. He listed some of the other tools, including the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that the program used urban renewal funds. Mr. Brown countered that it could be a self - perpetuating fund and the money could be continued outside of the urban renewal agency. He continued listing the financial tools, which included the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the Business Development Fund, tax exemptions such as the MUPTE and for affordable housing, and the City's General Fund. City Manager Jon Ruiz reiterated that they were just beginning the process. He underscored that there was a lot more discussion to come. Mayor Piercy encouraged everyone to focus on what they wanted to achieve and not what the mechanism to achieve it might be. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 5 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Surface Transportation Program – Urban Funding Rob Inerfeld, Transportation Planning Manager, reported that Lane Transit District (LTD) had received stimulus funds that the district was able to use to offset the deficit they faced, and so would not be applying for Surface Transportation Program – Urban (STP -U) funding in the current round. He reminded the council that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), defined by the federal government as the metropolitan planning area, received approximately $2.5 million annually in STP -U funds. He stated that the funding would be allocated for the federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, which began October 1, 2010. He explained that the funds were distributed under the direction of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), on which Mayor Piercy and Mr. Zelenka sat as Eugene's representatives. Mr. Inerfeld briefly highlighted the information contained in the AIS. He said typically the MPC considered STP -U funds in three -year cycles, but because of uncertainty regarding future federal funding, and because the MPC wanted to look more broadly at the criteria used, it had decided to only look at FYI 0. He said the MPC would be reviewing a draft list of STP -U projects on the following day and was scheduled to make a decision on what projects would be funded on September 10. Mr. Inerfeld provided the staff proposal. He noted that STP -U funds were spent in three categories: pavement preservation, street improvements /modernization, and project development. He listed and outlined the three projects proposed to be included in the list for FYI 0: • Coburg Road pavement preservation, $800,000; • West Bank Path completion project development, $200,000; • West Bank Path extension, $1 million. He conveyed staff's feeling that these projects would compete well as they were regionally significant and multi - modal. Mayor Piercy asked what projects the other jurisdictions were putting forward. Mr. Inerfeld did not have the list before him, but he believed that Springfield was seeking funding for pavement preservation and slurry seal projects, Lane County was pursuing pavement preservation and traffic signal work, Willama- lane was seeking funding for the Quarry Creek Bridge, and LTD, though it was not requesting any funds at this time, would likely request funds in future years to offset operational costs. Ms. Ortiz asked where the pavement preservation project for Seneca Road to Roosevelt Boulevard fell in the queue of projects. City Engineer, Mark Schoening, replied that he did not recall the specifics. Mr. Inerfeld added that they did have a project for Seneca Road in design at present. Ms. Ortiz agreed that the bicycle path was a good project, but she felt the hazards posed by the current condition of Seneca Road to cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians warranted a greater degree of attention. She preferred to request to have that road completely paved. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Inerfeld clarified that all of the agencies in the MPO could submit projects for a portion of the $1.65 million. He noted that the City of Coburg, like LTD, was not submitting funding requests at all. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Poling ascertained from Mr. Inerfeld that the estimated cost for the West Bank Bike Path was for the total project cost. He asked how long the projects that were being recommended for submission had been in the project list. Mr. Schoening responded that the bike path had been in the project list for four to five years. He said Coburg Road had been part of the $170 million backlog of pavement preservation projects and had come into the STP -U process because of the road's regional significance. Mr. Poling questioned whether moving forward with the West Bank Bike Path extension would take such a big bite out of the STP -U funding that it would preclude other funds for the projects that other agencies were submitting for funding. Mr. Inerfeld responded that the City of Eugene would probably not get what was requested, but staff hoped that the City would receive at least $800,000 out of the $1.6 million requested. He reiterated staff's feeling that the project would compete well. Mr. Poling was concerned that if Eugene received all that it asked for, there would be nothing left for the other agencies. He was also concerned that receiving substantially less than was asked for would hinder the City's ability to complete the projects. Mr. Inerfeld replied that he believed staff could come up with ways to phase the project or find other sources of funding. He said to keep in mind that Springfield had received more than Eugene in the last round, as it had received $1.7 million for Gateway /Beltline projects. He underscored that the funding was not necessarily distributed according to population or street miles. In response to Mr. Brown, Mr. Inerfeld explained that Transportation Options (TO) had to do with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and the ten percent of STP -U that was allocated to TO funding went to Point2Point Solutions, formerly known as Commuter Solutions, which promoted car pooling and ridesharing and signed up employers for LTD's group pass program, among others. Mr. Brown asked if the grant fund money allocated from the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program had been saved or if it had been spent on work on the bike path to date. Mr. Inerfeld replied that it was couched in the design and engineering costs. Mr. Brown ascertained from Mr. Inerfeld that the total cost of the project was $2.2 million. Mr. Inerfeld added that there would also be a local match for it. Mr. Brown asked if the City had already received the TE money. Mr. Inerfeld explained that the money had been allocated but not received; the City was required by the federal government to provide a local match of 11 percent of the cost in addition to the $2.2 million, slated to come from Systems Development Charges (SDCs). Mr. Clark underscored that he did not want anyone to misinterpret his question. He observed, in looking at the map, that his constituents stood to benefit from the three recommended projects. He questioned why, in a time when there were such limited federal funds, 60 percent of the funding was being requested to be allocated to bicycle projects when there was such a great need to fix the roads. Mr. Inerfeld replied that the council had the option to put forward the Coburg Road project. He pointed out that the City had just allocated $3 million, of the $6 million received in economic stimulus funds, to pavement preservation. He thought the City had done well with that. He added that part of staff's job was to consider their charge, which was to create a multi -modal transportation system and to address the backlog of road projects. He considered this to be a balancing act. He underscored staff's belief that if the bicycle path project was moved forward, it would position the City well to receive TE funds in the next round for another project they would put forward. He stated that staff's goal was to be as competitive as possible for any available funding from the federal government, so that the City could spend as few local dollars as possible and get as much state and federal funding for projects as possible. He believed that this could free up more local dollars to be spent on pavement preservation. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Clark reiterated his concern. He understood that the entire request from the City of Springfield was intended to pay for slurry seal. He pointed out that the City of Eugene had just taken $1 million of service out of the general budget because the City could not come up with the money to fix potholes. He said while the bicycle path extension was a needed project, he was challenged by the idea of giving it priority over the much needed pavement work in the City's backlog. Mr. Inerfeld noted that in the last three -year round of STP -U funding, all of Springfield's money had been allocated to a modernization project and all of Eugene's money had been allocated to the Roosevelt Boulevard pavement preservation project. Mr. Pryor found it challenging to determine what proposal would do the most good for the most people. He agreed that bike projects were important, but he felt that such a project had to have merit in other ways, such as being able to be used for commuting or for other purposes. He considered Coburg Road to be a clear project that would benefit a lot of people as well as a project that would cost less money out of a restricted amount of money. Because of this, he found the Coburg Road project to be more understandable. He suggested the City submit the bike path project in the next round of funding. He also agreed with Ms. Ortiz regarding Seneca Road, calling it "atrocious." Mr. Zelenka asked that the agenda materials on the STP -U funding provided to the MPC be copied for the council. He was curious as to how the three projects that were being recommended had "floated to the top." He said other projects on the list included the Glenwood Riverfront Path, which was a joint project with Springfield at $85,000, and pavement preservation projects such as Minda Drive, projected to cost $309,000, 33r Avenue, projected to cost $345,000, and Hawkins Lane, projected to cost $600,000. He wanted to know what the process was for determining this. Mr. Inerfeld stated that the Glenwood project would go before the MPC on the following day for action. He explained that because of the timing of the project, it required an answer as soon as possible. He said the request was coming from Springfield, though it would also benefit Eugene. Mr. Zelenka asked if it was then in Springfield's project list. Mr. Inerfeld responded that there were some other STP -U funds on the table, in addition to the $1.6 million, because the City of Coburg had returned some funds it had not used. Mr. Inerfeld explained, in response to Mr. Zelenka's original question, that the reason staff was putting the Coburg Road project forward was because of its regional significance and that it was seen as a multi -modal street. He said when competing with other jurisdictions, staff tried to put the best project forward. Mr. Zelenka allowed as how that made sense but wondered why the bike path project would rise above the three pavement preservation projects he had listed, though it was projected to cost almost as much as all three of them combined. Mr. Inerfeld replied that the bike path was a project that was partially funded already, but had a funding gap. He said staff saw the STP -U funds as a way to fill this gap. He noted that the project had been on the United Front list for years, adding that staff tried to prioritize United Front list projects. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 8 Work Session In response to a follow -up question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Inerfeld explained that the TE money had been allocated three funding rounds ago. He stated that the City had worked hard to be certified by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) as a Local Agency, which meant that it did not have to go through as much bureaucratic "red tape." He said the City was now able to meet the federal regulations differently which made it more efficient. He indicated that "in some ways" the City had held off on the project until it had met that certification and now staff wanted to move more aggressively to get the project moving. He noted that the year after receiving TE funds for the bike path, the City had again garnered $1 million in TE funding for the Delta Ponds Bridge and in the last round the City had not received any funding. He underscored the need for the City to ensure that it was well - positioned when the next round of TE funding was allocated. Mr. Inerfeld thought one option would be to commit to making the Coburg Road a top priority in the next three years. He did not think the section of Coburg Road in question would degrade that badly. Ms. Taylor supported the West Bank Bike Path extension. She felt it fit in with their "desire to save the planet" and would help the City's relationship with the Santa Clara area, as well as providing health benefits to residents who used it. Mayor Piercy read a sentence from the AIS that indicated that if the West Bank Bike Path extension did not move forward with construction in the next year, it could jeopardize future TE funding. She underscored that the City had been telling its congressional delegation that this was an important project for some time now. Mr. Clark agreed that the extension was an important project. He opined that when the City had "so few dollars" to work with, the roads should be fixed first. He reiterated that it boiled down to a question of priorities with the limited funds the City had. He intended to place a motion to forward the Coburg Road project. Ms. Ortiz asked what would happen to the TE funds if the City did not spend them. Mr. Inerfeld was uncertain how long the money would be held for the project. He reiterated staff's belief that the City would be more competitive for future TE funds if the project went forward. Mr. Schoening added that, one way or another, the City would "hang onto" the TE funds and build something. Ms. Ortiz indicated that she would support forwarding the bike extension project for submission for STP -U funding. Mr. Pryor found the suggestion to make a commitment to fund the Coburg Road project in the next three years to be intriguing. He asked what the likelihood would be, should the City submit the bike extension for STP -U funding now, that the City would receive funding for Coburg Road. Mr. Inerfeld replied that the City would definitely receive a significant share of the STP -U funds. He noted that, historically, Eugene had received approximately 37 percent of the total funding allocation. He also pointed out that the next round of funding would likely be for three years of STP -U funds instead of one. MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Pryor ascertained from Mr. Inerfeld that there were options for the Coburg Road project as well. Mr. Inerfeld added that the timing was not as sensitive for the Coburg Road project either. He noted that the funds allocated in the current round would be available on October 1 of this year and the next round of funding would be available on October 1, 2010. Mr. Pryor underscored that he did not want to fund one thing to the exclusion of another. He understood from Mr. Inerfeld that funding the bike path would not jeopardize the funding for Coburg Road. He indicated that he could support the bike path extension in the present with the promise that Coburg Road would be prioritized. Mr. Inerfeld related that in the last round the City had only received $800,000 to $900,000 for Roosevelt Boulevard and had added other funds for pavement preservation to complete it. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to apply for Sur- face Transportation Program – Urban funding for the West Bank Path Extension. Mr. Clark asked the combined total of all of the requests made by the MPO. Mr. Inerfeld could not recall the exact amount but said usually the MPO had an agreement to submit projects worth approximately 150 percent of the available funding. He stated that the staff recommendation from the Transportation Planning Committee would be a 100 percent proposal and would be the result of figuring out how to fund projects in each jurisdiction. In response to a follow -up question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Inerfeld assured the council that the City would get some portion of its request funded, but what percent of the funding they would receive would not be an exact science. Mr. Clark asked if some of the other representatives from other jurisdictions would look at the City of Eugene's request and determine that it was of a lesser priority than someone else's request. Mr. Inerfeld did not think this would be the case. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to substitute the Coburg Road project for sub- mission to apply for Surface Transportation Program – Urban funding. Mr. Clark averred that they needed to consider more than the message. He felt that what they were talking about was money that was available at different times for different projects. He noted that the source for the rest of the needed money for the bike path project was not clearly identified; they were just saying that they hoped to be able to get it. The motion to amend the main motion to substitute the Coburg Road project failed 5:2; Mr. Poling and Mr. Clark voting in favor. The main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the work session at 1:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 10 Work Session City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 11 Work Session