Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Corey that the MOU did not bind the City to future maintenance of the parkway. Mr. Corey said the MOU was not binding outside of binding the involved parties to agree to discuss an IGA. Mr. Poling asked if the council and Board of County Commissioners would have to approve the ultimate IGA. City Manager Taylor said yes. He said that signing the MOU would assist ODOT in moving forward on the project. He agreed with a remark from Mr. Poling that the MOU was one step in many to move the project along. Ms. Nathanson said the parkway was to have been a State project that created continuous connections to and between cities. She thought the State would still be interested in the project if the need still existed. Since the provision of connections between communities was a State responsibility, some of the questions and comments from project opponents concerned her. Ms. Nathanson believed the MOU provided WEP opponents with further doubt or ammunition against the project. Ms. Nathanson did not see how Eugene or Lane County would benefit if the State would not maintain the parkway, and was happy to hear the manager say his terms for the IGA included State responsibility for construction and maintenance costs. Ms. Nathanson was disappointed that the City had gone through multiple reevaluations of the project while the need for the project was growing rather than decreasing. She said it seemed as though the State planning process had placed the community in a ~Catch 22" position; if it completed the project it was wrong, but if it did not complete the project it was also wrong. If the State waited any longer to do the project, the problem would get worse, but the City could not redesign the project without starting out at square one, creating an endless loop which prevented the project from being done. Ms. Solomon agreed with Ms. Nathanson. She said she was confident in the manager's negotiating skills and believed he would come to an agreement with ODOT that benefited all citizens, especially those who voted for the parkway. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Nathanson that traffic conditions in west Eugene were worse, and he was discouraged to read that the planned route did not meet State standards. However, Mr. Meisner acknowl- edged the MOU was within the manager's authority. Mr. Meisner noted his long-held belief that the project cost too much money and would have too little effect, and that appeared to be confirmed by the State. He noted his membership on Lane Transit District's Bus Rapid Transit Steering Committee, which had discussed placing a route on Highway 126 to serve downtown Eugene and Springfield. The committee eventually gave up on many of the elements necessary for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along that highway because the State was unwilling to accommodate local standards or the regional goal represented by BRT. Now the State was proposing to transfer jurisdiction of the parkway because of local standards. Mr. Meisner asked about other examples in Oregon where State highways were being built to local standards. In response, Mr. Corey said the City's partnership with ODOT was healthier now than it had been in the past. He thought the City and State were on the verge of getting many good things accom- plished. He believed municipalities were better stewards of the transportation infrastructure inside their communities. He was an advocate for jurisdictional transfer of roadway facilities in company with the appropriate funding. Mr. Corey cited the extension of 42nd Street in Springfield as an example of a roadway constructed by the State to local standards and then turned over to the local city for maintenance. He said such transfers were quite common. Mr. Meisner requested a written response to his question. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 5 Work Session