Laserfiche WebLink
six months with a recommended work program for a longer term west Eugene strat- <br /> egy. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said there was no guarantee that the council would adopt a resolution referring the issue to the <br />voters, or that a ballot measure would pass. She supported the motion as initially stated so the council could <br />continue to work to retain the State funding for the other projects it had identified as needed. She asked if <br />the staff could identify listed projects that qualify for the Department of Land Conservation and Develop- <br />ment (DLCD) Land Use and Transportation Study so when staff returned with the list in six months the <br />council would have initiated the process to secure DLCD funding. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart thought the amended motion left room for ODOT and City staff to begin working together. He <br />opposed the main motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Gary Papd asked Commissioner Papd or ODOT staff to confirm the potential a no-build option would <br />result in the City receiving State funding that would have otherwise been committed to the parkway. <br />Commissioner Papd thought the chances were very slim the $17 million would be redirected to local projects <br />given the demand that existed in the remainder of the state and the time it would take to get engineering and <br />design accomplished. Mr. Gary Papd asked Mr. Reinhard if any engineering or design had been done for <br />items 2 and 3 on the list of short-term actions. Mr. Reinhard said some design work had been done for the <br />Beltline improvements and improvements to West 11th Avenue. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor determined from Commissioner Papd that the funding intended for the parkway was intended to <br />support State highway projects, and could not be applied to the local street system; that funding came from <br />another State fund. Mr. Rayor thought the potential of the funding being allocated to Eugene less than slim <br />in that case. Commissioner Papd did not like the word "impossible," but concurred with "very slim." The <br />funds would be returned to the STIP and reallocated using a competitive process. There was considerable <br />demand for the funds. He concurred the parkway funding was for improvements affecting the State highway <br />system. Mr. Reinhard clarified that the projects in Item 2 were eligible for State funding. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson perceived problems with a vote on the main motion. She wanted to have some work in <br />place, but she did not want to supplant the motion that just passed. She wanted the work that occurred as a <br />result of successful passage of the amendment to happen on a parallel track with the work that resulted from <br />the passage of Mr. Papd's motion. She suggested adding to the motion the phrase "and to complete specific <br />elements as appropriate, dependent on the outcome of the council's special meeting and the outcome of an <br />election if held.' <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman clarified that the projects that would be forwarded to the State for funding in October were all <br />on the State highway system. She said that most projects were not in final design when they were proposed <br />for STIP funding. Mr. Reinhard concurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner preferred to table the first clause of the main motion until the special council meeting at which <br />the council would consider the resolution. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey supported the amendment because he wanted to demonstrate that the council was willing to <br />work with the State on the other issues involved in the list of short-term items. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />