Laserfiche WebLink
involved recognized the difficulty of the effort and the need. All four agencies that were party to <br />TransPlan as well as ©D©T had participated in the development of the list. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if staff used any sort of criteria to evaluate the projects on the list. She also <br />asked if staff expected that, by putting projects on the list, some would never be accomplished, or <br />was it a simply a question of sequencing as funding became available? Mr. Reinhard responded <br />that the staff reviewed the criteria used to prioritize projects in the draft TransPlan. Recognizing <br />the magnitude of the changes needed, staff recommended deferral of the largest projects. He <br />said that the staff did not believe that the projects would necessarily be deferred beyond the 20- <br />year planning horizon given the continued dynamics of the transportation planning and funding <br />process. None were being abandoned; all were high-priority projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson agreed it was important to know the impact of council decisions on staff <br />resources; however, she considered this project somewhat differently given the delay in progress <br />on the parkway. Rather than looking at the parkway as a new project, she viewed the situation as <br />getting back on the initial track. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly continued to oppose the parkway project but acknowledged that the voters had spoken <br />in support of it. He supported the resolution as presented by staff. With regard to the ballot <br />measure, the next time some one suggested to him that a campaign would be a good way to <br />educate the public about a complex issue, he would "laugh uproariously" He found the campaign <br />to be a series of sound bites, citing in particular the fact he and others were derided publicly for <br />suggesting that projects would have to be postponed if the parkway was passed. Now the council <br />was considering a list that moved every local road project costing over $1 million except one from <br />the 20-year TransPlan project list. Mr. Kelly said he wished those in support of the parkway had <br />been honest about that. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly echoed Mr. Meisner's request for further analysis. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly pointed out to Ms. Nathanson that the situation was not business as usual in that the <br />staff work on other priorities, such as nodal implementation, would be delayed. That effort was <br />also intended to implement TransPlan. He asked if staff could ask ©D©T and the other local <br />jurisdictions if they could help to offset some of those expenses to allow work to proceed on the <br />City's State-related priorities. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart asked staff where its time would have been spent if the parkway had not been delayed, <br />and how its work load looked from this point. Ms. Childs said that last year staff anticipated the <br />parkway would be a project on the Planning Commission work program and staff and commission <br />time was scheduled for the effort in fiscal year 2001. When the council decided not to initiate the <br />amendment process in December 2000, the effort was dropped from the fiscal year 2002 work <br />program and the budget, and resources were redirected toward other projects, such as nodal <br />development. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr asked Mr. Reinhard to discuss the dynamics of the funding process. Mr. Reinhard <br />responded that things can change in terms of the funding available, and noted the City's <br />participation in the United Front federal lobbying effort, during which local representatives solicited <br />support for such funding. He noted that some of the projects on the list were in the early planning <br />stages, which added to the uncertainty about the size and timing of expenditures. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 2001 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />