Laserfiche WebLink
2. Continues to support a collaborative process that includes ODOT, if ODOT should <br />change its position; <br />3. Does not support the West Eugene Parkway in its current alignment nor the recent Fed- <br />eral Highways Administration proposed southern alignment. The southern alignment <br />could only be considered along with a wide range of other projects in the collaborative <br />process; <br />4. Supports the adoption of the fiscal year 2006-2009 MTIP, including all projects except <br />the West Eugene Parkway; and <br />5. Directs staff to return with a proposed list of transportation priorities for north and west <br />th <br />Eugene, including projects on the Beltline corridor and West 11 Avenue, and calls for <br />a work session this fall to consider how to advance these priorities. <br /> <br />Speaking in support of the substitute motion, Mr. Kelly said he believed it important for the council to go on <br />record that a majority of members continued to support the idea of the Mayor’s collaborative process. The <br />motion made it clear to the MPC that the door was open to examining other possibilities, including the <br />southern alignment. The motion also clarified what the council’s representatives to the MPC should do with <br />regard to the MTIP, and established a work session related to transportation priorities in west Eugene. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to divide each component of the motion into <br />separate motions. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein advised Mr. Papé against dividing the motion, suggesting that alternatively, he <br />move to delete those components he wished to remove. Mr. Kelly declined to accept a friendly amendment <br />from Mr. Papé to delete items 3 and 4. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to remove items 3 and 4 from the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated that, while it was not her optimum approach, she preferred Mr. Kelly’s motion as <br />stated because it addressed all the interests involved. She supported items 3 and 4 in particular. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé wanted the council’s representatives to the MPC to have sufficient flexibility to go to the MPC <br />and find a solution. He pointed out that the solution would be approved by the council. He wanted the <br />Mayor and Mr. Kelly to go to the MPC with open minds and hearts. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that if the council’s representatives went into the MPC meeting with the direction to be <br />flexible, their actions would upset several councilors. He suggested that the time for flexibility was inside <br />the collaborative process. He expressed disappointment with his meeting with ODOT Director Garrett, as <br />he had hoped for flexibility in that quarter, but instead he and the Mayor were handed a letter stating the <br />director’s position about the collaborative process. He hoped to “restore an atmosphere of flexibility” into <br />the discussion. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy averred that Item 4 merely restated what the council majority in opposition to the parkway <br />had stated all along—that they were willing to move the other MTIP projects forward. She further averred <br />that she received an indication from ODOT that it would be willing to participate in a “new collaborative <br />process.” <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said that had he known on May 24 that ODOT was not willing to participate in a collaborative <br />process, he would not have offered the council an amendment to the resolution related to the timing and cost <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 12, 2006 Page 2 <br /> Work Shop/Work Session <br /> <br />