Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

expressed some concern that the resolution lacked language that ensured that the result would be an agreement that would be a binding document. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the council’s representative to the MPC request the MPC to adopt the proposed resolution shown as Attachment A and that the City Manager direct the City’s representatives on the TPC to submit to the TPC a project appli- cation for $200,000 in STP-U funds for the collaborative process to identify a transporta- tion solution for West Eugene that has widespread understanding and acceptability and that the council’s representatives to MPC support that expenditure of STP-U money when the matter comes to MPC. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the fifth WHEREAS clause to add to the end of the clause the following: “…with the understanding that the process would not exceed 18 months in duration or $200,000.” Mr. Poling spoke to his amendment. He said he found it difficult to understand how someone could look for funds without knowing the cost or duration of a project. He felt the process could “go on until 3005” if no one put their foot down. He could not support the resolution without the amendment. Ms. Bettman wondered if environmentalists would support the collaborative process if they knew the incentive for collaboration was being “undermined” by programming the WEP into FY09. She did not understand why the decision was being “rushed.” She had many questions that she felt were not yet answered. She indicated she would vote against it until she felt her questions were answered to her satisfaction. Mr. Kelly opined that not taking the next step would be “as good of a definition of insanity” as he could find. He believed that action was necessary before the exact dollar amount and timeline would be known. He averred that “through no fault” of the council and Mayor, a number of the “powers that be” from other jurisdictions perceived the MPC to be at an impasse that threatened its existence. He felt that if the council did not come forward with a way out of the situation, it could end up with a worse scenario. He would not support the amendment. He submitted that the questions that Ms. Bettman needed answers for would be answered through the collaborative process. Ms. Taylor conveyed her opposition to the amendment. She asked if there was a strong reason to vote on the resolution at the present meeting. City Manager Taylor replied that there would not be another work session opportunity to consider this issue before the MPC met. He said based on the MPC’s procedures, should the motion pass, the resolution would be to direct staff to bring it back the following month. He felt this would give the process time for some of the details to be worked through. Ms. Taylor was concerned because the WEP was still in the MTIP. She preferred to wait to vote. She asked if “something terrible” would happen if it did not go to the June MPC meeting. Mr. Schwetz stated that one objective was to get the FY06-09 MTIP, as submitted to the MPC in November 2005, passed before the federal government declared it overdue. He related that the federal government had instructed the MPO that the MPC’s August meeting would be the last chance to adopt the FY06-09 MTIP. Mr. Pryor believed the amendment was necessary for all of the same reasons that Mr. Kelly believed it was not. He felt time was something in short supply. He thought if the process were to take longer than 18 months it would not likely work. He wanted to place some certainty on it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 10 Work Session