CC Minutes - 02/20/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Fart suggested that it was not that any project would be "killed," but would be delayed for 20 years. Mr. Pirrie concurred. Mr. Fart said that the projects did not need to be removed from the 20-year constrained plan, even if up to $61 million is added for the parkway, but can be left in the plan, just not in their entirety. Mr. Schwetz said that it was necessary to keep within the $172 million constraint. Mr. Fart asked if it was realistic to think that the members of the OTC will not allow emotions to enter into their decisions, regarding other projects in the area, given the response of the Eugene City Council to suspend the parkway, thus invalidating the work of both ODOT and the OTC. Mr. Pirrie said that he could not speak for the OTC. He said that it would be important to look at the engineering data that was available and look at the competing priorities/projects and recognizing that there is greater need than there are funds, and that funds would be reallocated. Mr. Gaydos asked Robert Cortwright of the Department of Land Conservation and Development to speak to the letter he sent last week, specifically statement in the third paragraph, 'If this major facility is removed from the plan, then Eugene must assess the consequences on the transportation system and reconfigure land uses and the transportation system to provide a match between land use and the planned transportation system." Mr. Cortwright said that his letter was not intended to address the federal financial constraint requirement; rather, it was intended to address the State transportation planning rules. The implication that DLCD has made is that the parkway would be removed not just from TransPlan, but from any plan. The process for accomplishing this would be initiating a comprehensive plan amendment or through the adoption of TransPlan, when that adoption occurs. Ms. Nathanson observed that the $88 million was not an astonishing amount of money, put into context with other projects. She asked about the costs of recent transportation projects. Mr. Reinhard responded that the Ferry Street Bridge project totaled $30 million and that the West 11th projects--Beltline to Danebo and Danebo to Terry Street--totaled $4 million to $5 million. Ms. Nathanson spoke about the process that would be required for another project, which culminates with a review with an approval or denial with the OTC. She asked if it would be legal to make a direct appeal to the OTC. Mr. Pirrie responded that anyone can go to any public board, including the OTC. However, there is a process which the OTC has asked be followed. Ms. Nathanson suggested that if there was a proposal that the Joint Elected Officials (JEO) could agree to, the JEO could appeal directly to the OTC and bypass a two-three year long process, as well as bypass the need to compete with other projects. Mr. Green responded, as the Lane County representative for the region, that Lane County does not compete well with other projects because many of its projects are still in the study state. Lane County needs to compete not only within the region, but also statewide for project funding. As an analogy, Mr. Green said that the best approach would be to consider the project as an orange--ODOT wants the peel, Lane County wants the fruit. He did not think that going directly to OTC would be in the best interest of the region. Ms. Nathanson commented that if Lane County then has to compete, it is back at the bottom of the list. Mr. Green said that this was the risk that was being taken by dropping the parkway from the project list. Ms. Nathanson asked if the federal funding rule, adopted in 1998, had been challenged, even though this project was approved prior to that time. Mr. Schwetz said that the requirement for financial constraint was MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 6 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members