CC Minutes - 05/24/06 Work Session

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Mr. Kelly pointed out that one way or another the process would have to be affirmed by the jurisdictions of the MPC. He observed that there would be no collaborative process without the MPC. Mr. Pryor stated that the transportation problem in west Eugene had to be resolved. He supported the WEP, but it had been stalled for 20 years. He remained supportive of what the WEP could do. He believed in collaboration but felt there should be limits on what it could do. He averred that the process could not “go on endlessly” nor could it be prohibitively expensive. He wanted to be clear in the resolution that there would be a placeholder on the money. He also wished to ensure that the collaborative process was truly th collaborative. He recalled that a significant collaborative process had been used in the project to widen 6 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 10 Work Session