Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner said that the original motion did not allow any flexibility, and for that reason he had <br />subsequently decided he opposed the motion. He did not find the amendment offerd by Mr. Rayor <br />to be a great improvement over the original motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly recalled that at the February 20 meeting with the Board of County Commissioners and <br />Lane Transit Board members, the council passed a motion directing staff to secure more <br />information about the east half of the parkway as a standalone item. He asked if the motion as <br />amended or in its original form could have the effect of overturning that motion. Mr. Lidz said no; <br />the motion as stated would not have that effect. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that Mr. Meisner had previously had mentioned his objections and she hoped <br />that would be satisfied by an amended motion. She thought the concept of connectedness was <br />implicit in the mention of recoding. She regretted what she considered interpretative problems <br />and wished to ensure the record reflected the real intent of the amendment. She supported the <br />amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked if the City had any idea about how ODOT might react to the amended motion. <br />Karl Wieseke from ODOT indicated he was unable to provide a reaction at this time. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said he continued to believe the best way to proceed in view of the 1986 vote was to <br />offer the issue back to the voters, one specific to the alignment and the other specific to project <br />financing. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey hoped there was four votes in support of the amendment because he would vote to <br />support it. He believed that ODOT would like to walk away from the parkway issue. He said that <br />ODOT looked at the opportunity given it by the council as its ticket out of west Eugene. ODOT <br />was prepared to look at several system enhancements in the area but were not prepared to deal <br />with anything beyond that. He believed the City had a challenge facing it in persuading the State <br />to hold the funds. <br /> <br /> The vote on the amendment was 4:4; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farr, Mr. <br /> PapS, Mr. Rayor voting yes; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. <br /> Bettman voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the <br /> amendment and the final vote was 5:4. <br /> <br /> The vote on the amended motion was 4:4; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farr, <br /> Mr. PapS, Mr. Rayor voting yes; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and <br /> Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the <br /> motion and the final vote was 5:4. <br /> <br />D. EXECUTIVE SESSION <br /> <br />Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(1)(e), Mayor Torrey convened an executive session of the <br />Eugene City Council. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called the council back into regular session. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 5, 2001 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />