Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Handy said that projects removed from the financially- constrained lists were not accounted for in the <br />bottom line financial constraint of each project's category. He asked why the information provided did <br />not include the adjusted subtotals and totals and the adjustments to the completed project costs that <br />differed from projected project costs. He asked that those differences be accounted for throughout the <br />document. <br />Mr. Handy asked if by leaving out an analysis of financial constraint for the year 2027, staff was implying <br />that the reasonable expectation for funding for highway, local road, transit, pedestrian, and bike projects <br />through 2027 would be the same as originally expected for the year 2015. If not, why was there no <br />analysis of financial constraint out to the year 2027? <br />Mr. Handy then spoke to TransPlan, Exhibit A, Ordinance 1272, saying that the only work that appeared <br />to have been done on the TransPlan update was editing, such as changing the plan horizon year from 2015 <br />to 2027, some text revisions to recognize the change to two separate urban growth boundaries, and new <br />text noting consistency between TransPlan and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). He questioned <br />how the trends expected for the year 2015, in a plan adopted in 1995, could remain unchanged out to <br />2027, and asked for the analysis to support that assumption. <br />Mayor Piercy raised a process question about the fact that Mr. Handy's remarks had occurred following <br />action to close the record by Eugene and Springfield. <br />Ms. Brotherton said that given the fact the record had been closed by Eugene and Springfield, there would <br />be two separate and different records. Mr. Yeiter suggested the elected officials could proceed with the <br />amendments, and staff could address the questions raised by Mr. Handy in a later phase of the process. <br />Ms. Brotherton said the staff responses to those questions could not be a basis for the elected officials' <br />decision on the ordinance in question. <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to reopen the record on behalf of Eugene; <br />the motion passed, 4:3; Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting no. <br />Ms. Leezer, seconded by Mr. Pishioneri, moved to reopen the record on behalf of <br />Springfield. The motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Ralston and Mr. Simmons voting no. <br />Continuing, Mr. Handy spoke to the Department of Land Conservation and Development- approved <br />(DLCD) Alternative Performance Measures Per work plan (Attachment B), recalling that the first, <br />second, and fourth quarters of 2009, were expected to address the DLCD- approved Alternative <br />Performance Measures. He did not recollect that work had been completed, adding that if it was, or was <br />in progress, - staff should provide the JEO with a hard -copy report on the status of the Alternative <br />Performance Measures. He asked if the measures needed to be adjusted and, if so, why? He asked if the <br />metropolitan area was going to be able to meet the benchmarks and wondered where the analysis of that <br />question was. He wanted to know what the area would do differently between now and 2027 if it was not <br />on track. <br />Mr. Handy said that performance measures were tied to project implementation, and many of the projects <br />scheduled to be completed by 2015 ' had been completed, so he questioned how future trends projected for <br />2015 could be the same as expectations for 2027, 12 years beyond that date. Mr. Handy did not think that <br />Lane Transit District (LTD) bus route status changes had been considered, nor had implementation of bus <br />rapid transit in Springfield or between Eugene and Springfield. He requested an explanation. <br />MINUTES Joint Elected Officials Lane County & Eugene June 17, 2010 Page 3 <br />