CC Minutes - 01/29/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Fart observed that given Eugene's tendency to act independently of its intergovernmental partners, he questioned their level of cooperation in advocating for any substitute projects. Mr. Pap~ pointed out that the council was discussing the money allocated to Unit lA of the parkway as though it was Eugene's, and he questioned the community's ability to retain the funding given the many conflicting priorities at the State level. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the council put the issue and funding options before voters. However, he was unsure of those funding sources, and asked if there was an option for federal funding. Mr. Carlson responded that the issue of funding the parkway had to do with the fiscal constraint analysis required in TransPlan. The FHWA indicated that, to finalize the Environmental Impact Statement and make it consistent with TransPlan, the entire project had to be funded in the plan. He said the financial analysis of TransPlan assumed some earmarked federal funding for local projects (approximately $75 million). It was conceivable the City could secure the entire funding amount in one bill, which would change the revenue picture in TransPlan. However, Eugene had no experience of such large allocations and staff could not anticipate the funding in its planning. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly that it was important to try to keep the money local. He thought it important to remember the dollars involved were currently earmarked for a specific purpose. Mr. Meisner recalled that when the council last discussed the parkway, several councilors spoke of the need to improve traffic flow in west Eugene. He agreed there was a need for improvements. Mr. Meisner wanted traffic removed from the residential section of West 11th Avenue. However, he also wanted "bang for the buck" and did not think the eight percent reduction in projected traffic was significant. He also pointed out that the funding now allocated only built Unit lA, from Seneca Road to Beltline, with no guarantee of funding for further connections, leaving the community with a "white elephant." Mr. Meisner thought Ms. Bettman's proposal had merit. The City could get the funding to improve Beltline and make better use of the transportation corridor without intruding into the wetlands. He wanted an approach that was monetarily efficient, had a transportation impact, and did not damage residential, commerical, industrial, or natural resource areas. Mr. Meisner said many spoke of the need for intergovernmental cooperation, and he agreed. He said that worked in all directions; if the City decided to include the entire parkway in the plan, something else would be eliminated, and the affected projects could be projects of interest to Springfield and Lane County. If Eugene made the parkway a top priority, it would be interesting to see the cooperation it would get in reducing the State list. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Meisner. She thought West 11th Avenue belonged to all residents and everyone was concerned about improving the traffic situation on the road. She said that the money involved belonged to the people of Oregon, not ©D©T. Regarding the issue of intergovernmental cooperation, she agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks. Ms. Taylor pointed out that Eugene was not objecting to improvements to Jasper Road or Pioneer Parkway. Mayor Torrey asked the council if there was any willingness to take the issue back to the voters, or if it was willing to go forward with parkway as currently exists. Regarding the latter, he suspected not; he was unsure as to the council's position on the issue of the vote. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 8 Work Session