Laserfiche WebLink
should the motion pass, the resolution would be to direct staff to bring it back the following month. He felt <br />this would give the process time for some of the details to be worked through. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor was concerned because the WEP was still in the MTIP. She preferred to wait to vote. She <br />asked if “something terrible” would happen if it did not go to the June MPC meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Schwetz stated that one objective was to get the FY06-09 MTIP, as submitted to the MPC in November <br />2005, passed before the federal government declared it overdue. He related that the federal government had <br />instructed the MPO that the MPC’s August meeting would be the last chance to adopt the FY06-09 MTIP. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor believed the amendment was necessary for all of the same reasons that Mr. Kelly believed it was <br />not. He felt time was something in short supply. He thought if the process were to take longer than 18 <br />months it would not likely work. He wanted to place some certainty on it. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked if the MPC could have a “special meeting.” Mr. Schwetz replied that the MPC had nothing <br />that would keep it from convening a special meeting aside from practical issues. <br /> <br />The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; councilors Poling, Papé, Pryor, and Solomon vot- <br />ing in favor and councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz, and Kelly voting in opposition. Mayor <br />Piercy voted in support of the amendment and the motion passed on a final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman observed that the process had gone on for years. She said the MPC was a “conflict resolution <br />body” and the City of Eugene was at an impasse there. She opined that the MPC was not really interested in <br />conflict resolution. She felt the resolution took the WEP out in name only, because ODOT would continue <br />its work on the process. She could not support the resolution because her questions had not been answered. <br />She opined that the research would not be neutral because of MPC and TPC oversight. She thought the <br />resolution would put all of the pieces in place to come up with the same conclusion that the community had <br />already “always come up with.” <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz expressed discomfort with having the WEP back in the project list, but she wanted to have faith <br />that the process could reach a resolution. She reiterated her support for the resolution. She noted that she <br />had not supported the amendment because she did not want to place time constraints on the committee as it <br />could hamper their ability to come to a decision with full understanding. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly averred that the resolution represented the only reasonable plan. He did not see any other path <br />that anyone proposed within legal parameters that had a chance of addressing transportation in any <br />reasonable timeframe. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the item. The motion failed, 6:2; <br />councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in favor. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opined that if the resolution was a harbinger of the collaborative process it was a “bad omen.” <br />She did not feel she had been allowed enough time to review the materials and ask questions. She said if the <br />collaborative process would “cater to one faction and ignore another” it would not be a collaborative <br />process. She thought the motion to table should have been approved. She opposed the resolution. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé said he would oppose the resolution because he believed it to be counter to the will of the voters. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />