Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if the resolution was approved. Mr. Schoening replied that Principal <br />Civil Engineer Chris Henry, Senior Transportation Planner Lisa Gardner, and he would bring the resolution <br />to the Transportation Planning Committee to brief it on the vote. Subsequent to this, it would be presented <br />to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to the MPC on June 7 and then to the MPC itself on June 8. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked who served on the CAC. Mr. Schwetz responded that 15 members served on the CAC. <br />Mr. Kelly noted some of the members of that body. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling shared Mr. Pryor and Ms. Solomon’s sentiments. He also agreed with Mr. Papé that the council <br />had an obligation to honor the will of the voters. He was glad to see that the intent of the proposed <br />resolution was to have the funding placeholder remain and that the NEPA process would be continued. He <br />expressed some concern that the resolution lacked language that ensured that the result would be an <br />agreement that would be a binding document. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the council’s representative to the MPC <br />request the MPC to adopt the proposed resolution shown as Attachment A and that the City <br />Manager direct the City’s representatives on the TPC to submit to the TPC a project appli- <br />cation for $200,000 in STP-U funds for the collaborative process to identify a transporta- <br />tion solution for West Eugene that has widespread understanding and acceptability and that <br />the council’s representatives to MPC support that expenditure of STP-U money when the <br />matter comes to MPC. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the fifth WHEREAS clause to add <br />to the end of the clause the following: <br /> “…with the understanding that the process would not exceed 18 months in duration or <br />$200,000.” <br /> <br />Mr. Poling spoke to his amendment. He said he found it difficult to understand how someone could look for <br />funds without knowing the cost or duration of a project. He felt the process could “go on until 3005” if no <br />one put their foot down. He could not support the resolution without the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman wondered if environmentalists would support the collaborative process if they knew the <br />incentive for collaboration was being “undermined” by programming the WEP into FY09. She did not <br />understand why the decision was being “rushed.” She had many questions that she felt were not yet <br />answered. She indicated she would vote against it until she felt her questions were answered to her <br />satisfaction. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly opined that not taking the next step would be “as good of a definition of insanity” as he could <br />find. He believed that action was necessary before the exact dollar amount and timeline would be known. <br />He averred that “through no fault” of the council and Mayor, a number of the “powers that be” from other <br />jurisdictions perceived the MPC to be at an impasse that threatened its existence. He felt that if the council <br />did not come forward with a way out of the situation, it could end up with a worse scenario. He would not <br />support the amendment. He submitted that the questions that Ms. Bettman needed answers for would be <br />answered through the collaborative process. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor conveyed her opposition to the amendment. She asked if there was a strong reason to vote on <br />the resolution at the present meeting. City Manager Taylor replied that there would not be another work <br />session opportunity to consider this issue before the MPC met. He said based on the MPC’s procedures, <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />