CC MInutes - 05/14/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

"take a hike." He thought it was the lack of confidence as expressed by the amendment that elicited that response. He said that LTD was "not out to steal money from us." Ms. Bettman found the mayor's comments irrelevant, saying that it was a matter of what it would cost the City to participate in the project. She said the council needed that information to know before it committed to the project. She had been unable to get information about the scale of the project cost and for that reason offered the amendment. Ms. Taylor supported the amendment. She did not think it was a matter of trust between partners, but a matter of trust between the council and the citizens that the council would know what money was involved before it committed it. Mr. Kelly said had the amendment remained in its original form, he would have completely agreed with the mayor. In its current form, it merely directed the manager to return with an estimate of costs and how they would be paid for. Ms. Nathanson thought the amendment requested staff to do something that would be very difficult to accomplish. She said there would be times when different departments would be involved in the project. Staff would be spending time in many different activities, such as responding to the council and talking to citizens. She questioned if those costs would be incurred because LTD was doing the project or because of the way Eugene did business, which was to be as thorough and comprehensive as possible. Ms. Nathanson questioned if it was really possible to identify "all City costs." She opposed the amendment. Mr. Farr agreed with Ms. Nathanson, saying the council was overanalyzing the issue and placing an additional burden on staff. He opposed the amendment. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He thought too often the City got into things it did not know the scope of, such as the Land Use Code Update. The amendment let the City know what it was getting into. Mayor Torrey said that if the council did not believe the City Manager and department heads would watch out for unreasonable requests for assistance, it should replace them. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting yes; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Rayor voting no; Mayor Torrey opposed the amendment, and the final vote was 5:4. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved amend the motion by replacing Section 2, Paragraph 4, of Resolution 4670 with the following: "Provide for involvement of City staff in project design and construction oversight and require that the Eugene Planning Commission and City Council to be involved in the selection of future routes. The agreement shall preserve City authority over all fundamental elements of the project within the city limits." Ms. Bettman said the amendment was a reflection of a resolution previously adopted by the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 8 Work Session