CC Minutes - 08/06/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Rayor said there was both a cost problem and an environmental problem with the parkway. He said the voters needed to understand there was a sensitive wildlife area that would be crossed by the parkway. Ms. Taylor indicated opposition to the amendment and motion. She did not support a parkway through the wetlands. She commended the staff summary and liked the staff-prepared motion as a starting point for discussion, which she would support if she had the chance. Ms. Taylor said she would not support putting something on the ballot that she thought was the wrong thing to do. Mr. Meisner did not support the motion or amendment as proposed. He emphasized that he was not interested in a %eauty contest vote." He said that the voters would expected a parkway if they voted to support one, and ODOT had removed its financial support for the parkway from its budget in past years. He wanted the costs and consequences associated with the parkway included in any measure offered the voters. Mr. Meisner pointed out that the City did not have the sole authority to build the parkway, and there was no guarantee the route would be approved by the agencies regulating the wetlands. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's comment about a beauty contest vote, Mr. Farr concurred, and added he expected the manager would prepare a ballot measure that explained what was really going on to the voters. Additionally, there would be a broad community discussion about the merits of the parkway, and a lot of information would be put forth by the various factions supporting and opposing the parkway. Mr. Farr did not support the proposed amendment to the motion because he agreed that the parkway was not a local funding issue. He indicated support for the main motion. Mr. Gary Pap~ said that there were other ways to fund the parkway outside of a bond measure. He offered the motion because he was concerned that if the City walked away from the parkway, it would be walking away from State funding for some time, and there were many other projects competing for those funds. Ms. Bettman said that if the voters wanted the parkway enough, they would pay for it using local money. She did not support the main motion because it eliminated any opportunity for the City to recapture the STIP funding for projects for which there was an immediate, identified need. She did not think the parkway would be supported if voters knew they would have to give up other projects or pay for it. Responding to Mr. Farr's statement that the measure would provoke a broad community discussion, Ms. Bettman believed the discussion would be dominated by those who could afford to dominate it and who stood the most to gain financially from the parkway. She did not think there would be a balanced community discussion about the issues it took the council years to identify and research. Ms. Bettman thought that the traffic reduction or gain in travel time from the parkway would be so minimal as to not be worth its price tag. She said that currently, 91.2 percent of the eastbound traffic on West 11th Avenue had a destination in Eugene or Springfield, and if those people were bypassing the community they would not be stopping or spending money in Eugene, and that was not a viable economic development strategy. With the concurrence of his second, Mr. Kelly withdrew his amendment, saying the points offered by other councilors were well-taken. He opposed the motion on the floor, agreeing such a vote would raise voter expectations that the parkway would actually be built, which would be setting up false expectations. He said that the council should take a leadership role and be honest with the voters by indicating what projects in TransPlan would be eliminated in the parkway was funded. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session