CC Minutes - 06/21/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

to do so. It placed a higher burden of proof on the council to show that the priority 3 project was more important that the priority 1 project. He pointed to the definition, which indicated that higher priority projects would be built unless "unless a lower priority measure is clearly more cost- effective, or unless it clearly better supports safety, growth management, or other livability and economic viability considerations." As a result, the council would have to produce some type of findings to support funding the lower priority. He did not think the policy would be a "straightjacket" on the council. Mayor Torrey did not oppose the policy as he believe it was the same thing the council would do in the absence of such a policy. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's assessment. He added that the mere availability of outside funds did not convince him that such projects had value. Each project should be evaluated on its merits. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Childs said that she interpreted the policy as being applied at the time a project was contemplated for inclusion in the CIP or TIP. Mr. Rayor supported the motion because he believed it would conserve money for road preservation through a reassessment of road projects. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Torrey left the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Lee assumed the chair. The council reviewed a new goal proposed by the Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County (CVALC©) related to Eugene's status as a major regional center and visitor destination. Ms. Childs suggested that, rather than add a new goal, the definition and intent statement of existing goal 2 be modified to incorporate the concept in the CVALC© proposal. She explained that goal 2 includes a list of aspirations for the transportation system, and the list could be modified with the addition of CVALC©'s concept: "supportive of travel by nonresidents to and through the area." Ms. Childs noted that Springfield, Lane Transit District, and Lane County had accepted the staff recommendation. Mr. Meisner did not think a criterion for designing the metropolitan transportation system should be for travel by nonresidents through the area. He pointed out that State facilities carrying through traffic in Eugene had created a a barrier through the community. Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Meisner's remarks. He acknowledged the importance of tourism to the economy but did not think TransPlan was the appropriate place to support tourism. He suggested that the phrase "through the area" could be interpreted as needing to get people across town as fast as possible. He thought the goal should be to slow tourists down while they stayed for a few days. Ms. Taylor concurred with Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly. Mr. Rayor moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, to modify the staff recommendation to read "supportive of travel of visitors to the area in recognition of Eugene- Springfield's status and responsibility as a major regional center and the second largest metropolitan area in Oregon." In support of his motion, Mr. Rayor said that he did not want to get into who was being served; he pointed out that the roads under discussion were public thoroughfares. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 17 Work Session