CC Minutes - 01/29/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

council of her remarks regarding the need to recognize legal limitations in Option 2. Ms. Childs concurred that if the option was selected that language should be added. MPC Recommendations Councilors pulled items from the list of six MPC recommendations for further discussion. Mr. Rayor asked that Item F be briefly discussed. Mr. Kelly asked for discussion of Item B. Ms. Bettman had questions about items A and D and wanted to discuss item E. Mayor Torrey determined that all councilors supported the recommendation reflected in Item C. Mr. Rayor asked that approval of Item F be postponed pending an analysis by the Lane Council of Governments staff regarding the an alternative performance measure regarding priority bikeway miles and return on investments in alternative modes. He indicated he would discuss the issue with the LTD Board, and was open to alternative policy wording. Mr. Kelly said it was his understanding that the intent of the policy was to move bicycle projects in the futures list to the 20- year constrained list. He asked that be conveyed to staff doing the analysis and the MPC. Ms. Childs recalled that the priority bikeway miles used in the alternative performance measure involved moving at least one project from the "futures" list to the "fiscally constrained" list. Councilors agreed to Mr. Rayor's request to postpone consideration. Mr. Kelly referred to Item B, regarding the I-5 Interchange Study, and asked why it was recommended to add the study to Part 4 of TransPlan, Planning and Program Actions, which was not binding in any way. Mr. Schwetz said the MPC subcommittee was concerned about how the study was paid for. He said that the adopting officials discussed the probability ODOT would pay for it, but the funding was not evident. The recommendation was a compromise that recognized the importance of the project and the uncertainty of the funding. Mr. Kelly was not comfortable with that approach. He said a study that was neither funded nor committed to was unlikely to occur. He encouraged the Oregon Department of Transportation to "step up to the plate." Mayor Torrey noted Springfield's concerns that the study would have a negative impact on the Beltline/I-5 interchange project. Mr. Schwetz acknowledged the concern but said the Springfield council was okay with the recommendation if the results from the studies were integrated. Ms. Bettman thought it made more sense to look at the I-5 corridor more comprehensively, rather than in piecemeal studies. She supported retaining the study on the project list and working to get funding, adding that there were many things included in TransPlan that were unfunded. Ms. Childs said that concerns had been expressed that the local community not end up bearing the cost of the study, and she suggested that ODOT be asked to provide a ballpark estimate of the cost of a corridor study. When the MPC discussed fiscal constraint, it could consider that estimate in the context of the overall project list. Mr. Meisner did not want to preclude Springfield's work on I-5/Beltline but wanted the studies to work together. He wanted to ensure that the needs of the entire corridor were addressed. Ms. Childs indicated that was the intent of Item B. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 5 Work Session