Laserfiche WebLink
Joint Elected Officials Meeting Minutes <br />September 15, 2008 <br />Page 2 <br />Tom Boyatt, Transportation Manager for the City of Springfield, started the staff portion of the <br />meeting. He was joined by Celia Barry, Lane County; Rob Inerfeld, City of Eugene; and Petra <br />Schuetz, Planning Director, City of Coburg. <br />Mr. Boyatt referred to the Regional Transportation Work Plan that was put together by the staff <br />from the four jurisdictions. This program was intended to bring our State required regional <br />transportation planning in consistency with the federally required regional transportation <br />planning. He noted that the City of Coburg had already made a finding of consistency that their <br />Transportation System Plan was consistent with the Federal Regional Transportation Plan:, <br />Because of those findings, it was not necessary that they approve the work plan presented. As <br />part of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundary, however, Coburg needed to be <br />involved in the development of the Regional Transportation System Plan and that was why they <br />were participating in today's meeting. <br />Councilor Betty Taylor joined the meeting. <br />Mr. Boyatt noted 'an email from Bob Courtwright from the Department of Land Conservation <br />and Development Commission (LCDC) which addressed two issues with the work program: 1) It <br />would take some time to complete the land use pieces for Eugene and Springfield, and that the <br />land use forecast needed to occur before the transportation planning could move forward; and 2) <br />The performance measures adopted by the LCDC in 2001 were addressed going ahead into the <br />future. He noted that there was language in the work program that addressed performance <br />measures. These were somewhat separate issues, but were connected in this process. <br />Mr. Boyatt said the work plan had been discussed once in a previous joint elected officials <br />meeting and at least once among jurisdictions during their individual meetings. The work plan <br />(Attachment A in the agenda packet) was not a policy document. Its purpose was to meet <br />transportation planning goal requirements and consistency between state, regional and federal <br />required plans. He noted that there were tasks and a timeline set out in the work plan shown in <br />Attachment A as two columns. He explained the two columns: Major Work Plan Milestone and <br />Ongoing Coordinated Local and MPO Planning Activities. There were two areas iri the memo <br />that were the chief areas of inconsistencies at this time. The first was the planned horizon year. <br />The Local Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) had a planned horizon year of 2015, which <br />was the same as the Metro Plan horizon year. The 2007 Federal Regional Transportation Plan <br />had a horizon year of 2031. The second area of inconsistency was project list consistency. No <br />amendments had been made yet to the TransPlan project list since the 2002 adoption. Some of <br />those amendments had been initiated. When they went through the 2031 Federal Plan, all <br />jurisdictions reviewed the project list and updated it based on projects that were feasible and <br />made sense. He gave examples. <br />Mr. Boyatt summarized the bullets in the right hand column of the table in Attachment A. This <br />work plan went out a number of years and flexibility was needed to adapt the plan as needed. <br />Each jurisdiction had policy discussions in that direction. Those discussions were outlined on <br />page 3 of the memo included in the agenda packet. There was agreement to amend the existing <br />TransPlan from planning horizon 2015 to 2023. He explained some of the projects that would be <br />moved from this plan. <br />Commissioners Green and Stewart joined the meeting. <br />