Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

standpoint and was accepted by the public. He thought that a "united front" would help to secure funding for the project. He encouraged ODOT staff to provide details to the council in the near future about the nature of the first phase of public involvement. Mr. Kelly noted that the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens were promised a stakeholders group that included Laurel Hill representation would be formed in May 2003 by Dean Fuller of ODOT in regard to the temporary bridge. He said the Fairmount Neighbors were also concerned about the need for early public involvement. Mr. Meisner noted the long-time interest on the part of many residents in a full interchange at the location in question, but they did not know how to get one. The failure of the bridge was good news in that it presented ODOT and the community with an opportunity to see how the bridge could work better for both Eugene and Springfield. He expressed appreciation to ODOT for its willingness to consider a full interchange. Mr. Meisner was interested in knowing more about the City's response to ODOT and stressed the need for Eugene to be a partner in the project. He agreed public involvement was needed. He was concerned about the budgetary impacts of the project and expressed dismay about past council decisions to cut funding for the Planning Division, which would have a role to play in the project. He hoped the City Manager considered the lack of capacity in the division and propose a way to address it in the budget. City Manager Taylor also was pleased to see ODOT's change in approach and the fact that it was not confined to the local area. He acknowledged the budgetary implications of the project and anticipated the City would work with ODOT on how best to meet the timelines, and then staff could consider how to adjust the organization's capacity to meet the need. Ms. Nathanson was pleased to see the planning process start. She wanted an actual project to be the result, not merely a study. She agreed with Mr. Meisner that the subject had been under discussion for years. She said that such an opportunity rarely comes along. The need and interest had existed for some time. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that beginning system planning so early would result in a situation where people would come in during the middle or at the end of the process and object that they were not involved in earlier discussions and call for the process to begin again. She asked how the City would preclude that from happening. Mr. Boyatt suggested that Ms. Nathanson was talking about how to be successful. He believed there were ways to do that, and it started at the council level. The quicker ODOT could go through the analysis level, the more efficiently it could get through the planning process and to a level of agreement among parties. He agreed that the bridge replacement represented a real opportunity for the community, and ODOT's director recognized that fact. Ms. Nathanson said that while she wanted the project to be completed, she was concerned about the cost. She suggested that "quicker was better" in this case because the City would have residents' attention to the solutions recommended. Mr. Pap~ thanked ODOT staff for the presentation. Mr. Pap~ concurred with the remarks of other councilors in regard to the change in ODOT's approach. He suggested that Eugene work with Lane County and Springfield to divide the needed work and develop and fund a public involvement process. He suggested the University of Oregon was also likely to be interested in the project, although he was unsure how it could be involved. Mr. Pap~ also concurred with Ms. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 2004 Page 6 Work Session