Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/29/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall January 29, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Pat Fart, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman, Gary Pap~. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A.Work Session: Discussion of Charter Review Issues Mary Walston of City Manager's Office reviewed a request from the members of the Citizen Committee on Charter Review to discuss four items of concern with the City Council. The first two items were related to the committee's process, the second two related to additional charges and the committee's work plan. The items were: 1) a proposal for a method to revise the charge to the committee; 2) definition of "housekeeping" revisions and "obsolete" sections; 3) adding the role of the mayor to the charge of the committee; and 4) adding campaign finance to the charge of the committee. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to approve the method to revise the charge to the Citizen Committee on Charter Review as proposed by the committee on January 25, 2001; to approve the definitions of "housekeeping" and "obsolete" as they relate to the revisions to be studied by the Citizen Committee on Charter Review and outlined in a staff memorandum dated January 29, 2000; to include the role of the mayor as a topic for review by the committee, and to include the topic of campaign finance as a topic for review by the committee. Ms. Taylor believed the examination of the role of the mayor was implicit in the council's charge to committee. If the committee was to discuss the power of the manager, a discussion of the power of the mayor could not be avoided. She thought campaign finance was also implicit in the committee's charge. Ms. Taylor wanted the committee to first address the items assigned it by the council before moving on to other items. She did not want to give the items suggested by the League of Women Voters or City Club any precedence above the items proposed by the council. Mr. Kelly expressed pleasure that the committee had "hit the ground running." He supported the committee's request on the basis that the issues were intertwined. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Taylor regarding the role of the mayor. She supported the committee's request to examine campaign finance, and asked how much time the effort would take. City Manager Jim Johnson said the committee did not discuss how long the effort would take. Members were still working through the details of the work program. Although Mr. Pap8 was unsure about the addition of campaign finance to the work program, he was prepared to support the motion because he believed the committee could determine what items should be addressed. Mr. Rayor noted his interest in having the committee look at legal precedents that might exist for campaign financing in other communities. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. B.Work Session: TransPlan The council was joined for the item by Planning Director Jan Childs, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, TransPlan Project Manager Tom Schwetz, and Senior Planner Paul Thompson of Lane Council of Governments. Ms. Childs reminded the council that it had held a previous work session on the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) conflict resolution process, which involved subcommittees of elected officials who attempted to reach agreement on unresolved issues arising out of the joint adopting officials' work sessions on TransPlan. She said that at the last work session, the council approved the alternative performance measures forwarded to the adopting bodies by the MPC, as well as a motion that requested evidence the measures would achieve the desired results. Ms. Childs noted that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) decided that the proposed new finance policy and description of a Willamette River crossing study would be addressed by MPC as a whole. Tonight staff was asking the council to give direction to its MPC representatives on those items, as well as seeking approval of the recommendations agreed upon by the MPC, reflected on page 31 of the meeting packet. Willamette River Crossing Mr. Thompson reviewed a letter received from Nick Forte of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which indicated the FHWA was concerned that any limitations attached to any potential river crossings would conflict with the federal NEPA process--which must consider all options available--and thereby threaten any potential federal funding for the study crossing. Ms. Childs reported that the Lane Transit District (LTD) Board decided to recommend no study on the basis of the FHWA letter. Mr. Meisner commended the LTD Board for its action. He did not want to include the study in the plan at this time. Future councils could always bring up the issue during a triennial review. Mr. Meisner did not want to assume a river crossing was the answer to transportation system problems. If the council did agree to a study, Mr. Meisner pointed out the text proposed by staff was unclear as to whether existing crossings were existing automotive crossings. He recommended the text be modified to refer to existing automotive crossings. Ms. Childs said that would be part of the council's direction to its MPC representatives. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Rayor concurred with Mr. Meisner. He would rather not include a bridge study in the project list at this time. He did not want to preclude a bridge if that what was what it took to make the transportation system in the metropolitan area work. He did not want such a crossing to impact parkland or existing housing. Regarding the location of such a bridge crossing, Mr. Rayor acknowledged the concerns of River Road residents regarding a potential bridge site, but the stretch along the river that they wished to preserve was the main connection between what he termed "the two Eugenes on each side of the river." Mr. Kelly also concurred with Mr. Meisner. A study was not needed at this time. If there was strong pressure for a study from the other adopting bodies in the interest of compromise, he would be comfortable with the text in the packet as a fallback with the clarifying language offered by Mr. Meisner. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the comments of the FHWA but said he was not comfortable in broadening the scope of the study. Ms. Bettman also agreed with Mr. Meisner. She did not think the study was needed on the project list, but felt the language mentioned by Mr. Meisner addressed her concerns regarding the potential conversion of a bicycle bridge if a study was included in the plan. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Childs said that she thought that LTD was interested in expanding the existing bicycle bridges, and she thought it important to get clarification on that point. Mr. Pap~ said if a study was done, it should be broad and not limited. If that was not to occur, he did not want a study. He asked for more information about LTD's position. Mr. Thompson said that the LTD Board had initially favored the text as proposed and was interested in an alternate modes crossing in the same corridor as a new automobile bridge. When the board heard the concerns of FHWA, it indicated it would prefer not limiting the study if that would conflict with NEPA in the future. The board would like to see a study initiated when there was agreement on a study area. Mr. Pap~ indicated he was nearing the same position as the LTD Board. Finance Poficy Mr. Schwetz summarized the positions of the LTD Board and Springfield City Council regarding the proposed policy. He noted the board support for Option 5, outlined in a memorandum entitled MPC Subcommittee on TransPlan Unresolved Issues. He said the Springfield council was not at all interested in a new finance policy. Ms. Bettman was very supportive of a new finance policy. She thought the finance policy proposed by the Eugene City Council (Option 2) was the closest to what she would like to adopt. She thought the modified policy statement was a reasonable compromise if revised to read "Recognizing legal limitations associated with expending various sources of transportation funds.. "She said that the some funds were more flexible than others, and the change in text meant Eugene was not locked into following any political decisions that had been made about transportation funding if they were not in the City's best interest. Ms. Childs indicated the policy was intended to refer to legal limitations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly emphasized the importance of a finance policy and one that was not overly rigid. He continued to favor Option 2. He also was comfortable with Option 4 as a compromise with the modification suggested by Mr. Meisner. Regarding LTD's preference, Option 5, Mr. Kelly thought the policy was acceptable but lacked a sentence that stated that if a jurisdiction chose not to follow the priorities in a project, it must explain that choice. He suggested the word "justification" rather than "findings." Mr. Rayor supported options 2, 3, or 4. He suggested that a policy similar to State policy IG1 might be interesting to explore. Mr. Meisner agreed with the statements of Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly. He thought Option 2 the ideal, Option 3 possibly acceptable if modified, Option 4 acceptable, and he shared the concerns expressed by others regarding Option 5. He said Option 2 was his first choice, and Option 4 his second. Mr. Pap8 found options 2, 3, and 4 acceptable. He thought Option 5 too wordy and overly detailed. Noting the reference to bringing streets up to urban standards in options 2 and 5, Mr. Pap8 observed that sometimes urban standards as defined today were not the best thing for a neighborhood. Mayor Torrey said the City's partners in the plan were concerned that the priorities in the proposed finance policy were intended to stop them from building street projects. He asked if the policy was intended to stop the construction of new capacity, such as that proposed in the West Eugene Parkway. He thought it important the council discuss the fact it must come to a consensus with its partners on TransPlan. He was unsure what occurred if there was no concurrence on the document. Mr. Meisner acknowledged the concern identified by Mayor Torrey, but said that compromise and consensus do not come from one council only. There was nothing in the policy that placed a legal limitation of the nature Mayor Torrey was describing on any jurisdiction. The policy merely established priorities that could be contravened with a set of findings or explanation, depending on the language used. The question, Mr. Meisner suggested, was whether compromise meant that the Eugene council must give up its position. Mayor Torrey questioned if the language used by Mr. Meisner, that the policy was not a limitation on another community or Eugene for that matter, could be included in the policy to address the concerns of the City's partners. Ms. Childs suggested that the council indicate its consensus with Mr. Meisner. Mayor Torrey determined that no councilor disagreed with the intent of the policy as expressed by Mr. Meisner. Mr. Kelly asked that the council's representatives indicate to the MPC that the two issues just addressed and the remaining issues on the agenda were not the total of the council's concerns. He said that the letter from Commissioner Peter Sorenson was not the opinion of one person, it was also the adopted position of a majority of the Eugene council. Ms. Childs said the MPC as a body would address the letter and the issue of financial constraint. Ms. Taylor said it appeared the majority of the council supported Option 2 or Option 4 as modified by Ms. Childs. Mr. Kelly reiterated his comments regarding the inclusion of justification text in Option 5 and determined several councilors shared his interest. Ms. Bettman reminded the MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 4 Work Session council of her remarks regarding the need to recognize legal limitations in Option 2. Ms. Childs concurred that if the option was selected that language should be added. MPC Recommendations Councilors pulled items from the list of six MPC recommendations for further discussion. Mr. Rayor asked that Item F be briefly discussed. Mr. Kelly asked for discussion of Item B. Ms. Bettman had questions about items A and D and wanted to discuss item E. Mayor Torrey determined that all councilors supported the recommendation reflected in Item C. Mr. Rayor asked that approval of Item F be postponed pending an analysis by the Lane Council of Governments staff regarding the an alternative performance measure regarding priority bikeway miles and return on investments in alternative modes. He indicated he would discuss the issue with the LTD Board, and was open to alternative policy wording. Mr. Kelly said it was his understanding that the intent of the policy was to move bicycle projects in the futures list to the 20- year constrained list. He asked that be conveyed to staff doing the analysis and the MPC. Ms. Childs recalled that the priority bikeway miles used in the alternative performance measure involved moving at least one project from the "futures" list to the "fiscally constrained" list. Councilors agreed to Mr. Rayor's request to postpone consideration. Mr. Kelly referred to Item B, regarding the I-5 Interchange Study, and asked why it was recommended to add the study to Part 4 of TransPlan, Planning and Program Actions, which was not binding in any way. Mr. Schwetz said the MPC subcommittee was concerned about how the study was paid for. He said that the adopting officials discussed the probability ODOT would pay for it, but the funding was not evident. The recommendation was a compromise that recognized the importance of the project and the uncertainty of the funding. Mr. Kelly was not comfortable with that approach. He said a study that was neither funded nor committed to was unlikely to occur. He encouraged the Oregon Department of Transportation to "step up to the plate." Mayor Torrey noted Springfield's concerns that the study would have a negative impact on the Beltline/I-5 interchange project. Mr. Schwetz acknowledged the concern but said the Springfield council was okay with the recommendation if the results from the studies were integrated. Ms. Bettman thought it made more sense to look at the I-5 corridor more comprehensively, rather than in piecemeal studies. She supported retaining the study on the project list and working to get funding, adding that there were many things included in TransPlan that were unfunded. Ms. Childs said that concerns had been expressed that the local community not end up bearing the cost of the study, and she suggested that ODOT be asked to provide a ballpark estimate of the cost of a corridor study. When the MPC discussed fiscal constraint, it could consider that estimate in the context of the overall project list. Mr. Meisner did not want to preclude Springfield's work on I-5/Beltline but wanted the studies to work together. He wanted to ensure that the needs of the entire corridor were addressed. Ms. Childs indicated that was the intent of Item B. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Schwetz reported that staff discussed the possibility of removing the two I-5 projects from the financially constrained list until the I-5 Interchange Study was done. Regarding the funding of the study, he noted that ODOT's planning dollars had been reduced and the agency was reluctant to commit to funding for the study at this time. Mr. Meisner thought removing the two I-5 projects made sense, as they could be added back in the future. He said he wished the study had been done before the Gateway area was developed. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Schwetz did not have a timeline or cost estimate for the study. He said the timing of the study depended on the funding. The council accepted Ms. Childs' recommendation. Ms. Bettman referred to Item A, and asked if the recommendation precluded a local jurisdiction from using access management in a retrofit situation. Ms. Childs believed that the recommendation encouraged that approach. Ms. Bettman had no objection to the recommendation with that clarification. Mayor Torrey determined there were no other objections to Item A. Ms. Bettman referred to item D and asked the intent of the last sentence, which stated local funding sources would not be prioritized in the regional prioritization process. Mr. Schwetz clarified that policy was modified to explicitly identify that the federal money going to the County Road Fund was not part of the State and federal revenues referred to in the first sentence. He said that the dollars involved were timber receipts; he did not know its percentage of overall funding. Ms. Bettman had no further questions. Mr. Kelly said he accepted Item D in the interest of compromise, and preferred it to the original because it was specific to the Capital Improvement Program and related to the proposed finance policy. Mayor Torrey determined there were no objections to Item D. Regarding Item E, Ms. Bettman thought that New Finance Policy #1 could be added to the definition and intent of Finance Policy 1, which stated that local governments would seek adequate transportation funding. She said one way to do so was to find ways to reallocate traditionally dedicated funds. Because of the scarcity of funds and backlog of preservation and maintenance, she thought it a useful strategy. Mr. Meisner said that while he was not attached to the proposed policy, he did not understand the resistence of the MPC subcommittee to the policy. It merely stated that local jurisdictions wanted flexibility in how they used their funds. Responding to a request for direction from Ms. Childs, other councilors indicated interest in pursuing Ms. Bettman's suggestion. C.Work Session: West Eugene Parkway MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Rayor recused himself, asserting a conflict of interest on the basis of a contract his firm has with the Oregon Department of Transportation. He said that after February 15 he would only have a potential conflict of interest. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson introduced the item, noting the work session was requested by councilors Nathanson, Farr, and Papa. Staff responses to questions submitted earlier by the council were included in the meeting packet. Mr. Carlson said that staff was seeking direction on two policy issues: 1) What to do with the project that is currently in TransPlan, Unit lA, retain, eliminate, or modify; and 2) Whether the council wanted to try to retain the $17 million earmarked by the State for the project in some manner, either by applying it to the Unit lA project, another project in the same alignment, other projects in west Eugene area, or in the metropolitan area. Mayor Torrey reported that Ms. Nathanson had requested the council not take action on the issue that evening. He had suggested to Ms. Nathanson that if action took place he would ask a councilor opposing the motion to vote for it so that he or she could bring it up as a reconsideration item. Mayor Torrey noted that representatives of the Springfield City Council and the Board of County Commissioners were present for the discussion. Mayor Torrey called for council comments. Ms. Bettman believed there were real time constraints facing the City and some of the variations on the theme suggested by staff would have to be reworked before the City could recapture the $17 million allocated by ODOT for Unit lA. She felt it was very important to retain the funding for other projects in the same area that address operational efficiency and safety, and favored substituting projects 312 and 333 (West 11th Avenue and Beltline Phase 3) for the funding now allocated to the West Eugene Parkway. She noted that Project 312 was high up on the list of unfunded projects, and included an interchange with the parkway, which would not be needed and which would free up several million dollars. Project 333 was a part of a larger project, it had already been planned for, it was on the project list, and it addressed traffic flow concerns in the area. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman' remarks, saying it was important to keep dollars in the local area and the projects she cited were a step toward improving the traffic flow in the west side generally. Referring to Beltline Phase 3, he said he assumed part of the Betlline project would be a streamlined transition from West 11th Avenue to Beltline involving a ramp rather than a signal stop. Mr. Reinhard said the project would need a signal and additional lanes at that intersection because the parkway would not be carrying a share of the traffic going the area west of Beltline. He thought the design would be reexamined if Ms. Bettman's suggestion was pursued by ODOT. Mr. Kelly said that the parkway was intended to take traffic coming from the coast and Veneta and move it to I-5 in a reasonable way; he believed that if the transition was streamlined, it would become the preferred direction for higher speed travel. Mr. Farr asked staff to discuss what chance the community had to retain the money in question. Mr. Carlson said that was a good question. Eugene would need agreement from its regional partners to attempt to get the Oregon Transportation Commission to reallocate the funding for Unit lA to the projects named by Ms. Bettman. The City would also need agreement from ODOT that the substitute was a reasonable alternative and the modifications to Beltline Phase 3 were apprpriate. Mr. Carlson said it was not a given that it would occur. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Fart observed that given Eugene's tendency to act independently of its intergovernmental partners, he questioned their level of cooperation in advocating for any substitute projects. Mr. Pap~ pointed out that the council was discussing the money allocated to Unit lA of the parkway as though it was Eugene's, and he questioned the community's ability to retain the funding given the many conflicting priorities at the State level. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the council put the issue and funding options before voters. However, he was unsure of those funding sources, and asked if there was an option for federal funding. Mr. Carlson responded that the issue of funding the parkway had to do with the fiscal constraint analysis required in TransPlan. The FHWA indicated that, to finalize the Environmental Impact Statement and make it consistent with TransPlan, the entire project had to be funded in the plan. He said the financial analysis of TransPlan assumed some earmarked federal funding for local projects (approximately $75 million). It was conceivable the City could secure the entire funding amount in one bill, which would change the revenue picture in TransPlan. However, Eugene had no experience of such large allocations and staff could not anticipate the funding in its planning. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly that it was important to try to keep the money local. He thought it important to remember the dollars involved were currently earmarked for a specific purpose. Mr. Meisner recalled that when the council last discussed the parkway, several councilors spoke of the need to improve traffic flow in west Eugene. He agreed there was a need for improvements. Mr. Meisner wanted traffic removed from the residential section of West 11th Avenue. However, he also wanted "bang for the buck" and did not think the eight percent reduction in projected traffic was significant. He also pointed out that the funding now allocated only built Unit lA, from Seneca Road to Beltline, with no guarantee of funding for further connections, leaving the community with a "white elephant." Mr. Meisner thought Ms. Bettman's proposal had merit. The City could get the funding to improve Beltline and make better use of the transportation corridor without intruding into the wetlands. He wanted an approach that was monetarily efficient, had a transportation impact, and did not damage residential, commerical, industrial, or natural resource areas. Mr. Meisner said many spoke of the need for intergovernmental cooperation, and he agreed. He said that worked in all directions; if the City decided to include the entire parkway in the plan, something else would be eliminated, and the affected projects could be projects of interest to Springfield and Lane County. If Eugene made the parkway a top priority, it would be interesting to see the cooperation it would get in reducing the State list. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Meisner. She thought West 11th Avenue belonged to all residents and everyone was concerned about improving the traffic situation on the road. She said that the money involved belonged to the people of Oregon, not ©D©T. Regarding the issue of intergovernmental cooperation, she agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks. Ms. Taylor pointed out that Eugene was not objecting to improvements to Jasper Road or Pioneer Parkway. Mayor Torrey asked the council if there was any willingness to take the issue back to the voters, or if it was willing to go forward with parkway as currently exists. Regarding the latter, he suspected not; he was unsure as to the council's position on the issue of the vote. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 8 Work Session Mayor Torrey reviewed the history of the project, dating back to 1976. He pointed out that the connection was also to I-5 south. Mayor Torrey said that growth was occurring in small communities like Veneta, which were acting to accommodate growth. When Veneta completed its new sewer system, it would spur massive growth in west Lane County, and those residents would expect a way to get to and from Eugene. Mayor Torrey was concerned about what the council would do if the City did not develop a way to get from the west side of Lane County to the core other than West 11th Avenue. He said that he had heard many references made by councilors to "access management," and he wanted residents to know it meant that direct access from West 11th Avenue would be eliminated. He said that "access management" was a catch phrase the public did not understand the implications of. Referring to Growth Management Study Policy 13, Focus future street improvements on relieving pressure on the City's most congested roadways and intersections to maintain an acceptable level of mobility for all modes of transportation, Mayor Torrey said that the parkway was intended to accomplish that goal on West 11th Avenue. Mr. Fart thought Mayor Torrey's points regarding growth in the outlying areas were well-taken. He said that while he was not saying constraining growth in Eugene was a bad thing, it did have an impact elsewhere. If the council was not going to allow his children to grow up in Eugene, they would have to move to an outlying community and then would need a way to get into Eugene. Mr. Fart said that the traffic on Highway 126 was heavy all hours of the day, and it impacted West 11th Avenue. He asked Mr. Reinhard for information on the projected reduction in congestion. Mr. Reinhard said that it referred to peak hour reduction projections for one segment of West 11th Avenue between Garfield Street and Bailey Hill Road. The source of the projection was the TransPlan model. Mr. Fart said the issue facing the council was one of how to respond to what the voters mandated, and another was how to respond to the demand in west Eugene for traffic flow. He heard no answer to the second issue. He questioned the projected eight percent reduction in traffic. If the council eliminated the project, it would have failed to address the issue of congestion in west Eugene, and he had a problem with the arrogance that demonstrated. Responding to the mayor's question, Ms. Bettman thought the council had already indicated by majority vote that it did not support the parkway. She addressed the issue raised by Mr. Farr regarding the projected traffic reduction and pointed out the projections were drawn from the TransPlan model. Ms. Bettman continued to advocate for her proposal. She was opposed to spending the needed funding to achieve the projected congestion reduction when facing a scarcity of funding. She did not consider the parkway a good use of dollars. Ms. Bettman wanted to move forward with an access management study for West 11th Avenue and recommended that the City employ the expertise of someone like Dan Burden to making the corridor workable. She said the City must move swiftly to recapture the $17 million allocated for Unit lA by substituting projects 312 and 333 for the parkway funding. Ms. Bettman said that constructing a freeway between Veneta and downtown Eugene would only impell Veneta to become a bedroom community of Eugene, and when that happened to a city, the urban core suffered blight. The life and resources were drained out of the urban core, and that was expensive to retrofit 20 years later when everyone had moved out. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Kelly agreed that the City did not have a lock on the money involved. He said that nothing was guaranteed; the City can only try to secure the funding. He advocated for a joint work session with the City's intergovernmental partners regarding Ms. Bettman's proposal. Mr. Kelly said that the projected eight percent reduction in traffic was based on the professionals' best effort to model the future transportation system and represented a good deal of what TransPlan was based upon. He cited projections, noting that the current daily volume on West 11th Avenue west of Beltline was 22,000 vehicles a day; if Unit lA was not built, in 2015 there would be 46,000 on the same segment of road. If Unit lA was built, there would be 42,000 vehicles a day. He did not think that a significant improvement. Mr. Kelly hoped the City could also discuss other approaches, such as access management and use of arterial streets. Responding to the mayor's definition of access management, Mr. Kelly disagreed, characterizing access management as rerouting access to businesses and streets rather than cutting off access to businesses and streets. He said that may mean people have to plan ahead to reach the places they wished to go. Mr. Meisner thought Ms. Bettman's proposal was a very constructive approach to traffic on the west side. He thought the issue was not only not building the parkway, but programming the funding. The City had money for only one segment and was guaranteed only that money. He thought if the funding was guaranteed the debate might have changed. However, the competition for funds was so fierce he doubted the parkway would ever achieve full funding. He did not think building Unit lA accomplished much. Mr. Meisner wanted the money to stay in the community and for it to be used on something that would have an actual impact in west Eugene. He did not think the federal government, State government, or voters would provide the needed funds to complete the entire parkway. Mr. Meisner averred that the community had seen what attempting to build its way out of congestion would do. He said that if the parkway was constructed it would carry volumes similar to those cited by Mr. Kelly for West 11th Avenue, tripling current traffic volumes. He did not favor building parallel roadways unless something was done to reduce the impact on the streets he wished to discourage through traffic on. He said that, while not the end, Ms. Bettman's proposals were a good beginning. Responding to the mayor's question regarding the council's interest in a vote, Mr. Pap~ said that many councilors continued to minimize the 1986 vote. He thought the council should go back to the voters and have the discussion it was having tonight with the public. He believed that the council was insulting the voters by not putting the question before them in an intelligent way. Mr. Pap~ read a letter to Mayor Torrey from State senators Susan Castillo, Lee Beyer, and Tony Cocoran requesting that the council reconsider its decision, and stressing the public support the project enjoyed, the public input into the project, the funding already spent on the project, and the parkway's importance as a regional transportation link. The letter suggested that the council's quick action in spite of public support and the public vote would erode public confidence in government processes and become a barrier to the involvement of the City's transportation planning partners in Eugene projects requiring their support. Mr. Pap~ did not think the City would get the support of Lane County and Springfield in reallocating the parkway funding by "slamming the door" on discussion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 10 Work Session Mayor Torrey outlined an alternative proposal he believed ODOT and the FHWA would find acceptable as meeting the original project goal. The proposal connected a widened West 11th Avenue to Highway 99 via Beltline and Unit lA while avoiding the wetlands. The intersections at Beltline and West 11th Avenue would be improved to accommodate new growth. Mayor Torrey estimated the cost of the proposal at $20 million and acknowledged it would require the cooperation of the City's intergovernmental partners. He called for further examination of both his and Ms. Bettman's proposals, saying if the City walked away from the goals of the project it would not have the money to do the work needed on West 11th Avenue. Mayor Torrey said that the City must find a way to address the added impact of more automobiles on the street. Mr. Farr said the council must find a way to collaboratively address the problems that existed in the corridor in most cost-effective way with a solution the public supported. Mr. Farr asked how much money has already been spent on the parkway. Carl Wieseke of ODOT estimated $10 million had been spent in planning and right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Farr asked if staff considered that $10 million wasted if the parkway did not go forward. Mr. Wieseke hesitated to say how much could not be recovered. He said if nothing was built, it would represent a poor effort on ODOT's part. Mr. Farr indicated that while it was not perfect, he could probably support the mayor's proposal. He said that if the council did nothing to alleviate existing and projected congestion on West 11th Avenue, it was wasting both effort and a plan that he thought had merit. Mr. Kelly thought the projected traffic numbers should be looked at in context: was the difference between 42,000 and 46,000 vehicles worth the expenditure of $17 million? Regarding Mr. PapS's recommendation that the council send a proposal back to the voters, he said he had seen no proposals about how such a question would be framed. He said he could reluctantly support sending the voters a measure if it was framed in terms of financial impact. Mr. Kelly thought the mayor's proposal deserved further study. He also thought the staff suggestion for an arterial street following essentially the same route as the parkway deserved study. He asked staff how, if the goal was to retain the funding allocated by ODOT, that could be accomplished in the existing time frame. He said that the mayor's proposal was essentially a new project, which he believed would require a new Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) or update to the existing ElS. In addition, the route would have to be modeled for its impact on traffic. Mr. Kelly questioned whether an additional $3 million would be sufficient to complete the project outlined by the mayor. He asked for firm figures, suggesting it was probably $15 million rather than $3 million because of the businesses that would have to be relocated. Mr. Carlson said that staff did not know the answer to Mr. Kelly's question. Staff had discussed the possibility of pushing the $17 million now allocated out one year or more in the next State Transportation Improvement Program and completing a Supplement ElS or new ElS. There was no guarantee that the State dollars could be retained for a new project, or that such a project would not need new money. Mr. Kelly was comfortable with staff attempting to work with Eugene's intergovernmental partners on holding the funds while the City studied the alternatives, but until the results of those studies were known, he did not want to program the project in TransPlan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Bettman said the costs of amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan to accommodate the parkway also needs to be considered. She thought the region should move quickly to get the $17 million reallocated to unfunded projects in TransPlan that could help to relieve congestion problems in the West 11th Avenue area. She said the mayor was proposing to build half the parkway, which she considered a significant resuscitation of the project. Ms. Bettman thought the best use of scarce funds was to look at the existing infrastructure and enhance that infrastructure with already planned projects to serve the area. Mr. Meisner said that 1986 was an advisory vote approving an alignment, not a mandate for the parkway. He hoped those concerned about that vote kept in mind the vote on the toxics right-to- know charter amendment was a mandate, and would not oppose it in the future. He said that the parkway should be considered in the context of the time. At that time, the City officials had been looking a long time for an east-west route. Mr. Meisner was willing to have staff examine the mayor's proposal. He hoped that if such a proposal was pursued, there was clear signage and lane closures at West 11th Avenue to spare it further degradation. He did not want to have 6th and 7th avenue become even more of a traffic corridor because it was already a barrier between north and south parts of downtown. Mayor Torrey asked the council if it objected if the City Manager scheduled a meeting of the joint adopting officials to discuss the parkway and associated issues. With the exception of Ms. Taylor, who was not willing to discuss the council's decision about the parkway with the other local governments, the council agreed. Mr. Kelly asked that the council receive some data in response to questions that had been raised about the alternative proposals prior to that meeting. Ms. Bettman questioned the precedence set by the action, asking if Lane County would be willing to consult with the City if it choose for some reason to remove a project from the constrained list and replace it with another. She thought that jurisdictions made their own decisions, pointing out that the projects for which she advocated were already in TransPlan. In response, City Manager Johnson suggested that the discussion was needed because the plan was a regional plan, not a local plan. Mr. Farr pointed out that the parkway was also in TransPlan, and the projects Ms. Bettman referred to were included in the plan because of the parkway. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 12 Work Session