Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson did not support the motion. The whole point of the parkway proposal was to use <br />State and federal money to address a problem imposed by the presence of a State highway facility <br />on the community. She thought it unconscionable to seriously suggest that Eugene residents <br />should bear the burden of paying for the parkway when the parkway was intended to serve a <br />much wider group of citizens. She said that the councilors putting forth the motion had frequently <br />discussed the need to broaden the City's resource base for other projects; for example, several <br />had expressed regret in the past that there was no regional support for the airport. She was <br />surprised at the shift in direction. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to table the motion to March 5. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner called for more discussion at a later time. <br /> <br /> The motion to table failed, 4:4; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Meisner, Ms. <br /> Bettman voting no; Mr. Farr, Mr. PapS, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Rayor voting <br /> yes; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion and the final vote <br /> was 5:4 against the motion. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion failed, 4:4; Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, <br /> and Ms. Bettman voting yes; Mr. Farr, Mr. PapS, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. <br /> Rayor voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion and <br /> the final vote was 5:4 against the motion. <br /> <br />In response to Ms. Nathanson's comments, Mr. Kelly said that he supported the amendment <br />because if the City was to go to the voters and ask them if they "would like a free lunch," he <br />suspected they would say yes. He merely wanted the means to pay for the project attached to the <br />vote. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by <br /> stipulating that the ballot measure will identify other TransPlan projects to <br /> delete or move to the futures list to pay for the West Eugene Parkway. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion failed, 4:4; Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, <br /> and Ms. Bettman voting yes; Mr. Farr, Mr. PapS, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. <br /> Rayor voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion and <br /> the final vote was 5:4 in opposition to the motion. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for discussion on the main motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson questioned the need for the motion if the western portion of the parkway was <br />eliminated. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor opposed the motion because the issues involved were very complex. He thought there <br />were significant environmental impacts resulting from the western section of the parkway that <br />would be heavily debated if referred. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson did not support the motion because it did not feel right to her to send something to <br />the voters that could never be implemented or accomplished because the majority of the council <br />would refuse to do so. <br /> <br /> MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />