Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to affirm the entire West Eugene <br /> Parkway project, to recommend to the TransPlan adopting officials that all <br /> four phases of the parkway be included in the financially constrained project <br /> list of TransPlan and to direct the City Manager to prepare the materials to <br /> initiate the necessary amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and <br /> goal exceptions for the Metro Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed astonishment that the motion called for an additional $70 million in funding for <br />the parkway in TransPlan with no identified funding source. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by <br /> stipulating that before the recommendation is conveyed to the TransPlan <br /> adopting officials, the council will identify TransPlan projects to be deleted or <br /> moved to the futures list, with the total cost equal to the cost of the West <br /> Eugene Parkway beyond Phase IA. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly indicated he anticipated staff input on the list of identified projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the council should identify projects for removal. She asked if <br />there were projects that could be moved to the futures project list by recommendation of the <br />Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), or if it was appropriate for Eugene to take unilateral action <br />in recommending such a list. Mr. Carlson believed the MPC was the appropriate venue for the <br />discussion. He believed the council had the prerogative to make a recommendation to the MPC <br />about projects to be moved to the futures list. Mr. Carlson added that removing $71 million in <br />projects from TransPlan would mean that projects in both Eugene and Springfield be removed <br />from the list, requiring joint action. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that just because Eugene came up with a list did not mean it came up with a <br />solution; the list would represent only Eugene's point of view. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Carlson about the impact on Springfield projects. She suggested <br />a recommendation regarding reductions in the list to the adopting bodies could come from MPC. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner favored the amendment to the motion, although he did not favor the main motion. He <br />said that the amendment represented the first time the council acknowledged that for the project <br />to be included something else must be removed. Before now, he did not believe the council made <br />that acknowledgment in a realistic way. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor also supported the amendment but opposed the main motion. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Carlson said that the joint adopting officials had <br />agreed upon a triennial review of TransPlan, and at that time the project list could be adjusted and <br />funding reallocated. Mr. Farr said that it appeared if a project was taken off the list now it could be <br />added later. Mr. Carlson said that there could be many reasons a project might be moved on or <br />off the list. He confirmed a statement from Mr. Farr that the removal of those projects did not <br />represent a "line drawn in the sand." <br /> <br /> MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />