11/25/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Gleason suggested that in order to get an overview of the plan and what e the model does, that the councilors sit down with either Mr. McKinley or Mr. Reinhard and look at the models which would result with or without the assumptions of the plan. Then ask, that given all the reasonable assessments, if that is really what is going to happen and if so, are you satisfied. Mr. McKinley suggested that the policies are an important area on which to focus. The action will be on those. He asked that the councilors call one of the staff if they have questions. Mr. Reinhard agreed that the plan assump- tions and policies, not the projects, have drawn the most comments. D. TransPlan's Tie into the Capital Improvement Program Ms. Ehrman expressed concern about the possibility of TransPlan projects taking priority over other projects in the CIP which are not transportation related. E. Revenue Availability Mr. Holmer asked to what extent the TransPlan was constrained by available revenue. He also asked if there was an adequate identification of projects sustainable by the City budget without new taxes. Mr. Reinhard said that there was not a sub-list, but that this could be done. Mr. Holmer asked if the City was committing itself to raising dollars for the TransPlan and commented that, if the projects were not financed, they had no meaning and became a wish list. e Mr. Gleason responded by saying that the council needed to decide if it agreed with the assumptions of the plan. The projects will be financed largely by Federal, State, and County funds. If the City does not have metropolitan priorities, it would be difficult to work in the Federal, State, and County area. A plan needs to be in place. Mr. Hansen asked if a list of the sources for funds for short-range projects could be made. Mr. Reinhard explained that the plan does this partially, and such a list could be made. The tables included now are for the metropolitan area, not just Eugene. He added that a list of short-range project fund sources would be made. Mr. Rutan suggested that City projects which are sustainable by the City be listed, so that the public can see which projects are funded by other sources. Mr. Hansen asked what happens if the City Council makes changes in the plan after the other governing bodies have approved. Mr. Reinhard responded that the MATC is the appropriate forum for resolving metropolitan differences. Information sharing with other jurisdictions will be done prior to a final decision by the City Council. F. Process for Updating TransPlan Mr. Holmer expressed concern that the TransPlan be updated and evaluated annually was too frequent. He suggested every three years, as the review process takes up a great deal of staff time and energy. He also asked how the T-2000 Plan got out of date if it was evaluated every year. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1985 Page 4