CC Minutes - 02/15/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Gardner said she understood there was some flexibility in how the earmarked funds were used within a defined area. However, the funding could not be used for improvements to the Beltline. Mr. Heuser said that the earmark must have a relationship to the area that was the subject of the Community Dialogue; otherwise, it would invalidate the earmark. It was his experience that such money would unlikely to be reprogrammed by Congress for improvements to Beltline. Ms. Ortiz asked when ODOT would be looking at the Beltline/I-5 area. Mr. Boyatt said that there was a commitment to start refinement planning for that project in fiscal year 2007, and there was $1 million in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) work related to the project. There was funding planned for the next STIP cycle. Mr. Boyatt said the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) and Lane County had established additional funding for that project as a major priority. He anticipated a proposal to add money for the Environmental Impact Statement work as well. He hoped the refinement planning would identify the biggest problems along the corridor so the NEPA process could be focused on that. Ms. Solomon expressed disappointment that ODOT was not interested in the interchange, which she thought was an important interchange that had significant safety issues. She wanted to continue to study the issue and get out ahead of the problems so if the City decided against ramps if could identify other alternatives and be prepared to act when money became available. She did not think the proposed federal match was unreasonable and suggested the amount was a value when compared to the costs of the new City Hall. Ms. Solomon asked if Springfield would provide part of the needed match money for the federal grant. Ms. Gardner believed that Springfield would be prepared to participate equally in the match, and the Springfield City Council would meet to discuss the proposal soon. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the manner in which Mr. Boyatt framed the discussion; he believed the issue of local benefit was worth considering. He liked the idea of expanding the scope of the examination to look at other alternatives. He thought the amount Eugene would be asked to spend was worthwhile in terms of its benefits. He would encourage the Springfield City Council to support the proposal as well. Mr. Papé believed that the issue had returned in the form it had because of the way the community had handled the West Eugene Parkway. He said that ODOT wanted to see substantial community support for the proposed improvements before proceeding. He also supported expanding the examination to include other alternatives and shared the interest of other councilors in knowing Springfield’s level of support. Springfield staff member Nick Arnis declined to speculate as to what the Springfield council would do. Mr. Papé wanted to keep the process moving forward. He said if ODOT would take a greater interest in the project if the study concluded there was a significant impact on the State system. Mr. Boyatt said that the NEPA process required that a transportation project have an identified problem, a purpose and need, and a preferred alternative or solution to the problem. Mr. Boyatt said ODOT, in its review of the regional travel demand model, found an increase in local trips on the interstate, which was not the State’s preference. He suggested that a community-driven project might come out of the study. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, Ms. Lee indicated that there was a project team tasked with ensuring any decision made at I-5 and Franklin could be adapted to the new bridge. There would be an opportunity to make the connection as the bridge would not be built in such a way that a ramp could not be MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 7 Work Session