CC Minutes - 01/29/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Rayor recused himself, asserting a conflict of interest on the basis of a contract his firm has with the Oregon Department of Transportation. He said that after February 15 he would only have a potential conflict of interest. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson introduced the item, noting the work session was requested by councilors Nathanson, Farr, and Papa. Staff responses to questions submitted earlier by the council were included in the meeting packet. Mr. Carlson said that staff was seeking direction on two policy issues: 1) What to do with the project that is currently in TransPlan, Unit lA, retain, eliminate, or modify; and 2) Whether the council wanted to try to retain the $17 million earmarked by the State for the project in some manner, either by applying it to the Unit lA project, another project in the same alignment, other projects in west Eugene area, or in the metropolitan area. Mayor Torrey reported that Ms. Nathanson had requested the council not take action on the issue that evening. He had suggested to Ms. Nathanson that if action took place he would ask a councilor opposing the motion to vote for it so that he or she could bring it up as a reconsideration item. Mayor Torrey noted that representatives of the Springfield City Council and the Board of County Commissioners were present for the discussion. Mayor Torrey called for council comments. Ms. Bettman believed there were real time constraints facing the City and some of the variations on the theme suggested by staff would have to be reworked before the City could recapture the $17 million allocated by ODOT for Unit lA. She felt it was very important to retain the funding for other projects in the same area that address operational efficiency and safety, and favored substituting projects 312 and 333 (West 11th Avenue and Beltline Phase 3) for the funding now allocated to the West Eugene Parkway. She noted that Project 312 was high up on the list of unfunded projects, and included an interchange with the parkway, which would not be needed and which would free up several million dollars. Project 333 was a part of a larger project, it had already been planned for, it was on the project list, and it addressed traffic flow concerns in the area. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman' remarks, saying it was important to keep dollars in the local area and the projects she cited were a step toward improving the traffic flow in the west side generally. Referring to Beltline Phase 3, he said he assumed part of the Betlline project would be a streamlined transition from West 11th Avenue to Beltline involving a ramp rather than a signal stop. Mr. Reinhard said the project would need a signal and additional lanes at that intersection because the parkway would not be carrying a share of the traffic going the area west of Beltline. He thought the design would be reexamined if Ms. Bettman's suggestion was pursued by ODOT. Mr. Kelly said that the parkway was intended to take traffic coming from the coast and Veneta and move it to I-5 in a reasonable way; he believed that if the transition was streamlined, it would become the preferred direction for higher speed travel. Mr. Farr asked staff to discuss what chance the community had to retain the money in question. Mr. Carlson said that was a good question. Eugene would need agreement from its regional partners to attempt to get the Oregon Transportation Commission to reallocate the funding for Unit lA to the projects named by Ms. Bettman. The City would also need agreement from ODOT that the substitute was a reasonable alternative and the modifications to Beltline Phase 3 were apprpriate. Mr. Carlson said it was not a given that it would occur. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 7 Work Session