Laserfiche WebLink
In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding the safety rating of the interchange, Mr. Arnis <br />said that the area had a moderate safety rating. He believed that the area "was an accident <br />waiting to happen." <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 did not think that an improvement to the interchange would necessarily lead to an <br />expansion of the urban growth boundary. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Lee as to who decided issues related to changes to the urban <br />growth boundary, Ms. Childs said that the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane <br />County decided. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly raised concern that the project was not a good use of State funds. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved that ODOT Project #257, the 30th <br /> Avenue/McVeigh Highway $15 million project, be moved to the future project <br /> list, and that a comprehensive study of the I-5 interchanges through the <br /> Eugene/Springfield area be added to the 20-year project list. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the chance of keeping project money in the <br />area, Mr. Schwetz said that revenue assumptions were built into the plan that were not tied to <br />projects. Mr. Reinhard added that it was difficult to lobby ODOT for projects. He noted that <br />ODOT had less and less money available for improvement projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner stressed that he wanted to see a need for a particular project before prioritizing it <br />higher than something else. He appreciated that the motion requested a comprehensive study of <br />the interchanges. He had concern over the loss of project money, but did believed that the <br />availability of money for a project was a project justification. He stressed the importance of <br />looking at all of the projects within TransPlan. He said that it was short-sighted to only look at <br />capacity building as a solution to traffic problems. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 applauded ODOT for working with and listening to local communities. He believed that <br />the project should stay on the 20-year list. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly pointed out that the council had already passed a motion to bring the Franklin <br />Boulevard/I-5 interchange in from the future list for a cost of $25 million. He pointed out that the <br />metropolitan area needed to produce a fiscally constrained 20-year plan and noted that the <br />council needed to offset some of that $25 million dollar cost. He suggested moving the 30th <br />Avenue/I-5 project would be a good way to do so. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 4:3, with Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor voting yes. <br />Mr. Lee left the meeting at 7 p.m. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said that another item that Mr. Kelly wanted to discuss was the Beltline/I-5 project. <br /> <br />Mr. Reinhard distributed a communication between himself and Mr. Kelly regarding a possible <br />motion. <br />Mr. Kelly said that there was a wide range of feelings regarding what was/was not warranted for <br />Beltline/I-5. He raised concern that the plan did not show the full range of options and costs for <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />