Agenda & Minutes

When available, the full agenda packet may be viewed as a PDF file by clicking the "Attachments" button and selecting the file you want to view.

Agendas are posted until the meeting date takes place.  Minutes are posted once they have been approved.

Mayor & Council (View All)

City Council Study Session Agenda & Minutes

Minutes
Thursday, February 22, 2018

AGENDA

February 22, 2018

6:00 p.m.

City Hall, Medford Room

411 W. 8th Street, Medford, Oregon

1.         TSP Introduction and Direction on Project List Prioritization

2.         TSP Goals & Policies Final Review

MINUTES

February 22, 2018

6:00 p.m.

City Hall, Medford Room

411 W. 8th Street, Medford, Oregon

The Medford City Council Study Session was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Medford Room of Medford City Hall on the above date with the following members and staff present:
 
Mayor Gary Wheeler; Councilmembers Clay Bearnson, Kay Brooks, Tim D’Alessandro, Dick Gordon, Tim Jackle, Kevin Stine (left at 6:15 p.m.), Kim Wallan and Michael Zarosinski
 
City Manager Brian Sjothun; Deputy City Manager Kelly Madding; City Attorney Lori Cooper; Planning Director Matt Brinkley; Principal Planner Carla Paladino, Public Works Director Cory Crebbin; Transportation Manager Karl MacNair; Deputy City Recorder Winnie Shepard
 
Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Principal Planner Carla Paladino spoke regarding the TSP, noting an update is linked to the new Urban Growth Boundary update as property must comply with the TSP when annexed.

  • The current TSP is 240 pages; staff plans to update the TSP to make it shorter and more user‑friendly
  • Estimated to have $75.4 million to fund projects; revenue coming from gas tax, SDC fees, street utility fees, grants, HB 2017 state transportation revenue, etc.
    • Street utility fees are not linked to the Engineering News Record; only the wastewater treatment fees
    • State transportation revenue and funding from HB 2017 were both considered to determine the street utility fees
  • TSP is financially constrained; we cannot afford all proposed projects
    • Projects ranked as Tier 1 will be funded first; Tier 2 will be funded through other means or grants, etc.
    • After multiple meetings, staff created and used 13 criteria to determine priorities for the TSP
      • Projects are divided into types:urban upgrade, roadway widening, new roadway, intersection improvement, pedestrian, multi-use paths and bicycle
  • Tier 1 projects were recommended by the consultant
  • Staff proposed mini-meetings by Ward to determine priorities specific to that Ward
 
Council comment and discussion:
  • TSP projects align with the UGB amendment
  • Tier 1 projects listed from the consultant includes all needed projects as well as priority projects as determined by staff
    • Tier 1 projects are not limited to priority though
    • Most of the intersection projects in Tier 1 are required for density
    • Are the projects we need to support the UGB all included in Tier 1?
  • Everything in the TSP is based on level of service (LOS)
  • Staff to determine the amount of funding available after paying for the required projects
  • Did Council make a “hard” decision on the LOS? If so, when?
  • Current TSP doesn’t support our existing zoning map
    • Does the current system facilitate the comprehensive plan in terms of land use?
    • Modeling and project list is based on the current GLUP map
    • TSP will not fix the deed-restricted properties that are not developed to the highest and best use; only addresses deficiencies
  • Council requested a list of problems, then options to fix the problems, then can determine goals
           
            Bicycle Lanes were discussed in detail; Councilmembers had multiple opinions, including:
  • Don’t need more bicycle lanes; bicycle routes should be regulated by the state
  • Are all of the bike lanes in the TSP required by the State or Federal government?
  • Councilmembers Jackle, Wallan and Gordon voiced concerns with the amount of bicycle lanes
  • Bicycle lanes and paths are needed for public safety
  • Previous TSP was deficient in bicycle routes and the new plan improves and “makes up” for the previous lack of bicycle lanes
  • Bicycle lanes should be proportional, not on every street
  • How are the bicycle lanes determined? Council? Traffic Engineering? Public?
    • Each Ward has specific needs that can be discussed in detail within the mini‑meetings
  • Bicycle and pedestrian paths are required and will be included in the TSP
  • Within new development, it is easy to include bike lanes
 
Continued Council comment and discussion:
  • Barnett Road and other corridors that will never comply within the TSP
    • These roads complied with previous TSP’s LOS; LOS D factors were revised
    • LOS exceptions should be outlined somewhere within the TSP; specifically the downtown area, Barnett Road specific to model, collectors and arterials required, projects identified are Tier 1, motor driven projects, but in the model we can modify LOS and strategy that sets the Tier 1 project lists
  • Council would like to know which projects are required before deciding on priorities and goals
  • Intersections within new development will begin at a higher level of service and will increase as more and more traffic uses the intersect; LOS D is a minimum
  • Council likes the mini meetings; planning staff will have projects broken down by Ward at these mini meetings
  • Council requested a list of Tier 1 projects broken down by priority/requirement
 
            Bicycle lanes were again discussed in detail; Councilmembers had multiple opinions, including:
  • Bicycles can use sidewalks and roadways as well
  • Sidewalks should be a priority over bicycle lanes, because sidewalks enables bicycle and pedestrian travel
  • There are very few bicycles on arterial and collector roadways
  • There are many streets without sidewalks; sidewalks are needed
  • Combining bicycles and pedestrian lanes is not safe
  • Bicycle travel on sidewalks is not safe
  • Although bicycles are allowed to ride within traffic lanes, it isn’t safe because drivers are not respectful and do not always acknowledge the bicyclists’ rights
  • There should be auto-centric roads and separate roadways designed as bicycle friendly; roads dedicated to cars and others to include bicycles and sidewalks
  • Perhaps bicycles shouldn’t be on collectors and arterials; should be riding on lesser-traveled roads
  • Bicycle-specific paths don’t exist in West Medford, riders have to ride on roadways
  • Perhaps there should be meetings with bicyclists
  • In Ward 2 and 3 residents use their bicycles for transportation to and from work and not necessarily leisure; they need safe areas to ride
  • Create bicycle boulevards specifically bicycle friendly routes
  • Could we have Tier 1 and Tier 2 type breakdown of bicycle projects; perhaps set aside funding specifically for bicycle paths
  • Bicycles and pedestrians should be able to co-exist on multi-use pathways
  • Bicycles on the roadways is not safe, especially for leisure riding or children
  • “Bicycle boulevard” was defined as existing, specific streets without much travel could be used for bicycle routes
 
Continued Council comment and discussion:
  • Goals and objectives increased from three to six, to include modifications made after mini meetings
  • Ms. Paladino noted the track changes pages and requested Council feedback
  • Councilmember Jackle requested more information before he could approve the goals and objectives
  • How can the City have a transportation network that serves the existing land use map?
  • The TSP is needed to annex properties included in our UGB amendment
  • Council agreed to review this information again on a Saturday; after all Mini meetings are held
  • Vision statement and objectives are okay
  • Requested to see images of actual streets and/or neighborhoods before and after potential improvements
  • Requested staff take the time to fully explain the long-term goals to ensure an adequate street system; the proposals don’t appear to be anywhere close to meeting future needs

 
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
 
 
 
 
Winnie Shepard
Deputy City Recorder
 

© 2019 City Of Medford  •  Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top