Laserfiche WebLink
projects that address safety and efficiency on West 11th Avenue and in the <br /> West 11th Avenue and Beltline corridor, and study ways to enhance the <br /> arterial and collector system connectivity in west Eugene. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion failed, 2:6; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting <br /> yes. <br /> <br /> The main motion failed, 2:6; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to refer the proposed route of <br /> the West Eugene Parkway back to the voters to reconfirm the community's <br /> willingness to construct the parkway, and to direct the City Manager to <br /> prepare the necessary materials to place the measure on the ballot. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion to place a <br /> 20-year obligation bond for $71.3 million on the ballot to fund the West <br /> Eugene Parkway. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ thought two measures, one related to funding and the other related to the route, should <br />be offered to the voters. He was not sure of the approach he wished to take, but thought all the <br />alternatives, not just a general obligation bond, should be considered. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner indicated he would support the motion because he thought the question of the project <br />and its funding were inseparable. He determined that Mr. Papa's reference to the route referred to <br />the entire parkway route. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that the question of cost was inseparable from the question of route. He <br />asserted that ©D©T staff had repeatedly stated the agency was not willing to guarantee funding <br />for future parkway segments. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Bettman if the funding proposed was adequate given the age of the <br />estimate. In response to the question, Ms. Bettman suggested the amendment be revised with <br />the addition of the phrase "plus any additional costs" following "$71.3 million." Mr. Kelly indicated <br />that the revision was acceptable to him as the second. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Meisner's remarks regarding ©D©T, Mr. Farr said that the agency was not <br />guaranteeing anything, particularly in light of the way the council had responded to ©D©T. He <br />hoped the public perceived the transparency of the amendment in question, because it was <br />ludicrous to propose. If the community would not approve public safety issues, it would not <br />approve a transportation issue, and he believed Ms. Bettman fully understood that. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that the estimated project cost was a good argument for passing the first <br />motion that had been considered. ©D©T was prepared to fund the entire parkway cost. He said <br />that if the motion was intended to kill the project, he recommended she divide the question. He <br />advocated for letting the citizens vote for the two issues--the parkway and its funding as proposed <br />in the motion--separately. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said he understood the parkway was to be part of the State system would be a State <br />road, so State funding would be appropriate. Mr. Carlson confirmed the parkway had always been <br />a State project and it was always assumed that the project would be completly State-funded. <br /> <br /> MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />