Laserfiche WebLink
raised concern that the proposed parkway would fragment the existing wetlands. He said that he was <br />looking for a resolution to the issue that citizens could understand. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman commented that many things had changed since the 1986 vote on the route of the proposed <br />parkway. She cited reductions in government funding, new data about the significance of wetlands, and <br />concerns over urban sprawl as examples. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that nothing had changed since the council had made the decision not to pursue the <br />parkway the previous December. She said that the resolutions presented by staff did not have any more <br />information about the consequences to other transportation projects or about funding issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted that whatever the 1986 vote had been for, it was the voters' perception that they had <br />voted for a parkway. He added, however, that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had done <br />nothing to facilitate construction of the parkway and that, even if there was an election, there was no <br />guarantee that it would be built. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he preferred the two-question resolution but raised concern that the resolution <br />language presented by staff did not mention costs, consequences, trade-offs, or other jurisdictional <br />approvals. He said that he could not approve of a resolution without some draft of the measure language. <br />He stressed that any measure going before the voters needed to be as fully explained as possible. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson stressed the need for the resolution language to be "crystal clear" as to what was going to <br />happen. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson commented that when citizen trust in government was lost, it affected every decision the <br />council made over the course of years. She said that the council could not accomplish its goals without the <br />trust and participation of the public. She went on to say that all of the recent planning done in west Eugene <br />had been done on the assumption of the existence of a parkway and added that taking away transportation as <br />an element of planning meant that the council had failed in its long-range planning obligations. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr commented that there was a great deal of public confusion over the actions of the City Council. <br />He opined that the public perception was that the council was "pulling the plug"on a plan that had been <br />approved by the voters. He stressed that the council needed to clarify things in the minds of the community <br />by allowing a discourse in the community by putting the issue on the ballot. He suggested a media <br />campaign to help educate the public before the vote. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 suggested that it was high time the matter was put to a vote so the City could find out whether the <br />public really did support the parkway. He further suggested that more information needed to be added to the <br />resolution regarding the fact that the funding for the project was uncertain and that it would delay other City <br />transportation projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein outlined ways of informing voters: <br /> <br /> 1. The Ballot Measure: Mr. Klein noted that, under State law, the ballot measure had to include a <br /> ballot caption of not more than 10 words, a question of not more than 20 words, and an expla- <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />