Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

th and 7 avenues and that had culminated in no result. He did not wish to see this scenario repeated. He expressed his willingness to approve of the process with the caveat that it be sincere and have a tangible result for the community. Ms. Solomon wished to ensure that whoever served on the committee would come to the table with the understanding at the outset of the process that there was a problem to be solved and would not spend time arguing about whether or not there was a traffic issue. It was important to her that committee members signed on to a statement that indicating they would support the result. She asked who would be on the collaborative committee. City Manager Taylor related that the Osprey Group suggested a group of 25 “wise people” who represented stakeholders from the various points of view. In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, City Manager Taylor surmised that the committee would be selected by the interjurisdictional partners. Mr. Papé opined that whatever track the community ended up pursuing could bring about litigation. Mr. Papé still perceived the option before the council as going against the will of the voters, as 60 percent of voters opposed an alternate process for the WEP. He did not regret the hiring the Osprey Group because he thought it could inform a ballot measure asking voters to consider whether or not to embark on another process. While he would be in favor of incorporating it into a ballot measure, he could not support the resolution. Ms. Taylor expressed skepticism regarding the outcome of the process. She wondered where the committee members would be drawn from and how it would be determined whether they were wise. She heard the Osprey Group recommendation that the committee not be made up with the usual people who involved themselves in such issues. She did not think there were people in the community who did not already have some preconceived notions about the project. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Klein clarified that a significant change to the route would fall outside of what the voters had approved. He stated that the voters did not have to approve something under the charter in order for ODOT to build a road. He explained that the charter indicated that if the City of Eugene was going to participate in some way, then the voters would have to approve it. He was uncertain what the solution would be from the collaborative process, but if it was a significant enough change, it would require a vote. He noted that there had been a number of small changes in the two decades the WEP had been under consideration, moving parts of the route a quarter mile in one direction or another, and those changes did not require a vote. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if the resolution was approved. Mr. Schoening replied that Principal Civil Engineer Chris Henry, Senior Transportation Planner Lisa Gardner, and he would bring the resolution to the Transportation Planning Committee to brief it on the vote. Subsequent to this, it would be presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to the MPC on June 7 and then to the MPC itself on June 8. Ms. Taylor asked who served on the CAC. Mr. Schwetz responded that 15 members served on the CAC. Mr. Kelly noted some of the members of that body. Mr. Poling shared Mr. Pryor and Ms. Solomon’s sentiments. He also agreed with Mr. Papé that the council had an obligation to honor the will of the voters. He was glad to see that the intent of the proposed resolution was to have the funding placeholder remain and that the NEPA process would be continued. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 9 Work Session