Laserfiche WebLink
have failed. He said that he would support the motion to get the information to Mr. Kelly, but was <br />disappointed that the parties involved could not get the information. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he recognized that it was LCOG's staff that would be involved, but that he was following <br />the protocol to direct the City Manager to seek whatever assistance was needed. Mr. Kelly said that he set <br />April 15 because there has been a sense of urgency. He said that this motion does not preclude the Mayor <br />from lobbying to get the state to proceed with Phases lA and lB, except if that was the only proposal the <br />Mayor was lobbying for. It would allow for the Mayor to lobby for ways to do all three of the alternatives <br />within the motion, not for one alternative exclusively. Mr. Kelly added that he was between angry and <br />dumbfounded. He said that although there have been calls to use the $17 million, there have been no <br />proposals to proceed. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that the Mayor's alternative would have been one way to forward and keep the money. <br />Mr. Rayor also had a proposal which would have accomplished the same. As a result of the council's <br />decision at its December meeting, the council would be looking for a variety of alternatives. She said that she <br />did not understand that the variety of alternatives would preclude the Mayor's proposal for 1A/lB. Of all the <br />issues that would be explored in the motion, there are no funds set aside for any of the proposals. She said <br />that she did not see solutions identified in the motion to identify funds. Unless the City can explore if the <br />State can fund options, then the issue will remain unresolved. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, to amend the motion to add the phrase, <br /> "and to continue to explore funding and construction of West Eugene Parkway Units <br /> lA and lB or similar alternatives," after (3) of the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that this motion includes the specific scenario that has been proposed by Mayor Torrey. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the motion was unnecessary because Mayor Torrey's proposal was included in <br />subparagraph (1) of his motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that while he would support the motion, he felt that it was meaningless. He said that he <br />concurred that the Mayor should not lobby for a single alternative exclusively without the direction of the <br />City Council. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that the intent was already included in subparagraph (1) and she would not support the <br />motion. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that he felt that the motion would give him direction and to the point, only speaking to <br />lobbying on this particular element, he urged others to lobby for their own proposals. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that she would not support the motion. <br /> <br /> The vote on the motion was a 3:3 tie; Mr. Rayor, Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner <br /> voting in support; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition; Mayor <br /> Torrey breaking the tie by voting in support of the motion. The final vote was 4:3. <br /> <br />MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 14 <br /> Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members <br /> <br /> <br />