Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly explained that he made the motion because he had gotten word from staff that it did not have <br />specific direction from the City Council to proceed. Ms. Bettman concurred that she has heard that staff <br />needed directions. She said that although this was a "balancing act," there was no official direction from the <br />City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner returned. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that he believed that an affirmative vote on this motion would not preclude other options. Mr. <br />Kelly said that the motion asked for answers on three options. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked staff if the motion can be accomplished. Mr. Carlson said that the request was really an <br />environmental impact study, including land use, transportation, preliminary design. Mr. Kelly disagreed. Mr. <br />Carlson said that he could not commit the resources of LCOG and ODOT to answer the questions. This is a <br />State project and the modeling has been provided through LCOG. He said that Eugene staff can come back <br />with some level of response by April 15, with whatever resources partners can provide. Mr. Carlson said he <br />did not know if the level of response would be sufficient. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that the motion and its study request really were an integral part of TransPlan. LCOG will <br />have to work on these issues as part of TransPlan. Mr. Schwetz disagreed. Mr. Carlson said that there is not <br />an adopted Transportation Plan with those studies in it. The studies will not be done prior to the adoption of <br />TransPlan. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked what the local resource need might be. Mr. Reinhard said that the work would be done in <br />staff's spare time. Mr. Pirrie said that whatever is arrived at needed to have a legitimate basis that can be <br />used in future studies. He said that this might involve significant money and suggested that this might be a <br />project to carry forward as a STIP project in the next round. From a staff perspective, there was not planning <br />nor design time to put a lot of effort into this. He questioned the value of the study. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked if there was anything which would preclude him from seeking State support. Mr. Kelly <br />and Ms. Bettman said yes. Mayor Torrey asked why there would be a motion to preclude him from trying to <br />give the City Council the opportunity to vote on something that the State might be willing to pay for, and still <br />allow the City Council to come up with its own recommendations, which could compete with the Mayor's <br />recommendations. He urged that the motion be defeated. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey read from a letter from Grace Crunican, dated February 15, "we have been committed to the <br />parkway and will continue that commitment." He said that it was clear that the City Council can proceed with <br />the parkway and can proceed with the development of Unit IA. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not think the parkway would result in significant congestion reductions. She urged the City <br />Council to move forward. She added that the information does not have to be prepared quickly, but that there <br />is the luxury of time. She urged the City Council to focus its efforts on how the $17 million could be <br />attracted back to the community for projects that are already approved that are in the state right-of-way. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked Mr. Kelly if the motion precluded potential acceptance of Phases lA and 1B. Mr. Kelly said <br />that it did not. Mr. Rayor said that a lot of work has already gone into the parkway; the State has bought $6.3 <br />million of right-of-way. He said that he wants to work on connectivity today, not when all the intersections <br /> <br />MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 13 <br /> Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members <br /> <br /> <br />