Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap~ asked what would happen if, in three years, the community dropped Phase 2 of the <br />parkway out of the 20-year constrained TransPlan. Mr. Carlson responded that was a plausible <br />scenario in light of the triennial review. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey reminded the council that it had previously agreed to include the parkway in the plan <br />until the federal government had required the entire project to be included in the plan. He <br />indicated he would support the motion if there was a tie. He said that the City knew it was going <br />to have to negotiate the constrained project list with its intergovernmental partners. Mr. Carlson <br />clarified that there was a draft constrained project list; because projects had been added to the <br />initial project list, the list was out of balance financially. <br /> <br />In regard to Mr. Papa's question about the future, Mayor Torrey reminded the council that ©D©T <br />was a player in the project and would be at the table, so it was unlikely the community could shift <br />funding for the projects without some risk. He pointed out that eventually the project would need <br />to be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program. <br /> <br />Responding to the concern expressed by Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly concurred that the adopting <br />officials would have to concur with the council's proposed list, but it was his feeling that if the <br />council was to make a recommendation to the adopting officials regarding the parkway, it should <br />give the other jurisdictions some recommendation regarding what that project list contained. <br /> <br />Referring to Mr. Carlson's response to Mr. PapS's question, Mr. Kelly said he could not imagine <br />that the community could take project phases out of TransPlan without the concurrence of the <br />Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Mr. Carlson said that the FHWA would have to be <br />involved in that decision, as the FHWA had to accept the plan as well. Mr. Kelly said he was not <br />aware that the federal government had to accept the plan as well and wondered why that had <br />never been mentioned. Mr. Carlson responded that the requirement for a financially constrained <br />plan was a requirement of the FHWA. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked for information about the estimated project funding to come from the State and <br />asked how realistic it was that projected revenues needed to underwrite the costs of the entire <br />project would be available. Mr. Carlson said there was no guarantee of funding. He clarified that <br />the revenue assumptions the community was to use were provided by ODOT. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson noted the importance of the project to the City's partners in transportation <br />planning, particularly to Lane County, and the support expressed for the project by local State <br />senators. She suggested that for that reason, it was preferable for MPC to develop the project <br />list. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson observed that, in terms of the issue of anticipated revenues, revenue assumptions <br />would change over time. He cited the County's receipt of timber money, a portion of which could <br />be earmarked for improvements on the State highway system and which becomes new revenue <br />for the State. In terms of the fiscally constrained list, Mr. Carlson said that if the council wanted to <br />proceed with the parkway, staff believed it would still have the opportunity to go to the FHWA and <br />©D©T and work on other ways to ensure that the project was funded without placing the entire <br />amount in the plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked what staff would ask the FHWA if the council was firm in its opposition to the <br />parkway. Mr. Carlson said that staff would do what the council wanted it to do. <br /> <br /> MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />