CC Minutes - 02/20/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor asked if there was any other way to accomplish connectivity, and could the funds be held for another year. Mr. Pirrie said that there was the possibility for reallocating the funds. He said that the funds could be held and used on some portion of the highway system. He said that ODOT's primary interest was in Beltline and West 11th Avenue. He noted that without further construction, the intersection at West 11th Avenue and Beltline Road was projected to fail. Ms. Morrison asked for clarification on having the project listed on the "restricted" list and questioned if other projects had to be dropped. Mr. Pirrie said that there is $172 million included in TransPlan's fiscally constrained project list. Projects intended to be constructed within that 20 years' period are on the constrained list. He said that the $17 million would not be part of that if it had already been approved in the previous STIP update. The entire parkway would need to be included in the $172 million constrained list, which means that other projects would have to be removed from the futures list. Ms. Weeldreyer arrived at 6:02 p.m. Ms. Wylie asked what competing projects were ready to proceed within Region 2. Mr. Pirrie said that the Newberg/Dundee bypass, as well as projects in the Astoria area, are ready to proceed. There may be other phased projects which might be ready to go. There may also be projects which have construction overruns. Mr. Kelly asked if the projects categorized as "ready to go" are within the current STIP or in the 2002-2006 STIP. Mr. Pirrie said that current projects are those that are ready to go to bid. He said that there may an opportunity to move some of the future projects forward, using these funds, allowing for future funds for other projects. He characterized this as a "programming movement." Mr. Pap~ arrived at 6:07 p.m. Mr. Kelly asked if the whole parkway project was required to be in the fiscally constrained plan, would an equivalent number of other projects have to be removed, or would they simply be moved out 20 years. When ODOT sent its December letter, was there a suggestion from ODOT for what projects should be removed from the TransPlan list? Mr. Schwetz responded that the federal guidelines said that there are options to include the entire costs in the project costs. He referred to page 5, question 10 of the Guidelines for Coordinating NEPA Approvals and Fiscally Constrained Long Range Plans. He said that this reference implies the flexibility to either amend TransPlan or look at a new EIS that considered a segment of the project. Mr. Kelly referenced the same citation and noted that the restriction for smaller segments were that "those projects must have (1) logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope, (2) have independent utility or independent significance..., and (3) not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements." He asked if one could stand up and say with a straight face that Unit lA met the criteria of having a logical termini or had independent utility. Even so, a new NEPA process would be required, which meant the $17 million would still be lost because it must be spent this year. Mr. Schwetz said that there would need to be a financially constrainable segment. He said that the question then becomes how that affects the financial constraints of the plan. He said that it was not an $88 million question, but a smaller amount. Mr. Kelly said that if Units lA and lB were considered, it would then be an approximately $10 million to $20 million issue that would require removing $10-20 million of other projects from the list. Mr. Schwetz concurred. MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 5 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members