Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

2027. He said if the projects and development patterns realized over the past 15 years had not gotten the community where it wanted to be, there should be analysis of that. Mr. Handy said that projects removed from the financially-constrained lists were not accounted for in the bottom line financial constraint of each project’s category. He asked why the information provided did not include the adjusted subtotals and totals and the adjustments to the completed project costs that differed from projected project costs. He asked that those differences be accounted for throughout the document. Mr. Handy asked if by leaving out an analysis of financial constraint for the year 2027, staff was implying that the reasonable expectation for funding for highway, local road, transit, pedestrian, and bike projects through 2027 would be the same as originally expected for the year 2015. If not, why was there no analysis of financial constraint out to the year 2027? Mr. Handy then spoke to TransPlan, Exhibit A, Ordinance 1272, saying that the only work that appeared to have been done on the TransPlan update was editing, such as changing the plan horizon year from 2015 to 2027, some text revisions to recognize the change to two separate urban growth boundaries, and new text noting consistency between TransPlan and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). He questioned how the trends expected for the year 2015, in a plan adopted in 1995, could remain unchanged out to 2027, and asked for the analysis to support that assumption. Mayor Piercy raised a process question about the fact that Mr. Handy’s remarks had occurred following action to close the record by Eugene and Springfield. Ms. Brotherton said that given the fact the record had been closed by Eugene and Springfield, there would be two separate and different records. Mr. Yeiter suggested the elected officials could proceed with the amendments, and staff could address the questions raised by Mr. Handy in a later phase of the process. Ms. Brotherton said the staff responses to those questions could not be a basis for the elected officials’ decision on the ordinance in question. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to reopen the record on behalf of Eugene; the motion passed, 4:3; Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting no. Ms. Leezer, seconded by Mr. Pishioneri, moved to reopen the record on behalf of Springfield. The motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Ralston and Mr. Simmons voting no. Continuing, Mr. Handy spoke to the Department of Land Conservation and Development-approved (DLCD) Alternative Performance Measures Per Work plan (Attachment B), recalling that the first, second, and fourth quarters of 2009, were expected to address the DLCD-approved Alternative Performance Measures. He did not recollect that work had been completed, adding that if it was, or was in progress, staff should provide the JEO with a hard-copy report on the status of the Alternative Performance Measures. He asked if the measures needed to be adjusted and, if so, why? He asked if the metropolitan area was going to be able to meet the benchmarks and wondered where the analysis of that question was. He wanted to know what the area would do differently between now and 2027 if it was not on track. Mr. Handy said that performance measures were tied to project implementation, and many of the projects scheduled to be completed by 2015 had been completed, so he questioned how future trends projected for 2015 could be the same as expectations for 2027, 12 years beyond that date. Mr. Handy did not think that MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials—Lane County & Eugene June 17, 2010 Page 3