I respond that the city has traditionally relied on private development to finance <br />2 transportation infrastructure and that there is nothing improper about making <br />3 financing of the east-west bypass a factor under ORS 197.298(3)(c). <br />4 We agree with petitioners. As the Court of Appeals explained in <br />5 McMinnville, the scope of "services" in ORS 197.298(3)(c) does not include <br />6 "roads." 244 Or App at 275. If the real reason respondents included the lower <br />7 part of Area 6 was to allow development that would generate the funding <br />8 necessary to build the east-west bypass (a road), respondents erred in relying <br />9 on ORS 197.298(3)(c) to include Area 6. <br />10 E. Error to Include Area I Farmland to Accommodate Need for <br />11 Multi-Modal Path <br />12 Area 1 is predominantly agricultural land composed of Class I and II <br />13 soils. One of the reasons given for including agricultural land in Area 1 into the <br />14 UGB was to "provide a means to complete a portion of the Coburg Loop Multi- <br />15 Modal Path." Record 751 <br />16 Petitioners point out the proposed multi-modal path crosses agricultural <br />17 lands in other places that are not being included in the UGB and that under <br />18 OAR 660-012-0065(3)(h), "[b]ikeways, footpaths and recreation trails" are <br />19 specifically authorized transportation improvements on rural land, so there is <br />20 no need to include agricultural soils in Area 1 to develop the multi-modal path. <br />21 We agree with petitioners. This subassignment of error is sustained. <br />Page 45 <br />