CCMinutes - 06/09/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor said that the reason the region had no ACT was because past MPC members had been very opposed to establishing one. She believed the region was the only one in Oregon which lacked an ACT. She concurred with Ms. Bettman's concern that Eugene did not have an opportunity to review projects prior to their being proposed for inclusion in the STIP. Mayor Torrey said the Portland metropolitan area and a region in eastern Oregon did not have ACTs. He said the Lane Board of County Commissioners did not want an ACT, and until it did, there would be no ACT. With regard to the veto situation, he concurred with the summary provided by Mr. Carlson. He said the local area needed a group that worked together for the general good of the local transportation system. He believed it was in the interest of all for the partners to work together to make the system work better so the veto situation did not arise. He suggested that could be accomplished by improved communication between the parties could involved could reach a consensus. Mayor Torrey said he recently attended a Local Officials Advisory Committee meeting in Salem where committee members discussed the potential of making Highway 126 an express freight way at some time in the future, which raised a concern about ;;SBA" and ;;UBA" designations on that highway from 1-5 to Florence. He asked Tom Schwetz of the Lane Council of Governments to provide him with information about what those acronyms meant. He added that the designation of that highway, if it occurred, would have tremendous implications for the local transportation system. Ms. Nathanson believed the council was talking about both a decision system and a transportation system. She pointed out that while Springfield had veto power over Eugene in theory, the opposite was also true. In regard to the decision system, she said that how representatives to the MPC decided to vote was either in accordance with the direction of their governing body or their personal convictions. She said it appeared there was frustration with the decision system, but changes to the system would have impacts to the transportation system. She suggested that at worse, a jurisdiction could promote and construct a roadway that ended at the city limit. Ms. Nathanson believed the issue was not only who got what dollars, but about constructing a system that made sense that worked to move people around the metropolitan area. Ms. Nathanson said the system needed to be simplified and made easier to understand while ensuring no jurisdiction makes a decision that was detrimental to the community as a whole. For that reason, she thought the other jurisdictions should be able to offer comment on Eugene's priorities, and vice versa. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved that all project lists or funding alloca- tions for projects within the city of Eugene or the Eugene urban growth boundary (UGB) generated through the TPC for MPC/MPO approval shall first be reviewed and approved by the Eugene City Council before the TPC recommendations are re- viewed for approval by the MPC/MPO, including review of regional projects in which the City is a stakeholder. Ms. Bettman said while it was true the council had approved the many documents that informed the list, she pointed out those documents included many more projects than would be built, and they were malleable and could be quickly amended. Citing the courthouse area projects as an example, Ms. Bettman said sometimes projects were not expected and the process must be sufficiently flexible to ensure those projects could be considered for funding. She wanted to create a process where the council had a say in where the priorities were placed. That was consistent with the practice of other jurisdictions. The MPO coordinated its MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 3 Work Session