Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Farr determined that the State had already spent right-of-way dollars to acquire property, and asked <br />what would happen to that if the parkway was not built. Commissioner Pap~ indicated the right-of-way <br />would be liquidated. That funding would go back to the federal government, the initial source of funding. <br />Mr. Pirrie said that $6.5 million of the total $10.6 million that had been expended to-date had been spent for <br />acquisition of right-of-way. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner believed that the property owners who sold the State the land would want it back, and there <br />would be no shortage of buyers. He wanted clarity on what the manager would return with in the form of a <br />resolution. If it included a discussion of consequences, the project list, and the uncertainty of funding, he <br />would support that. <br /> <br />In response to Ms. Bettman's remarks, Ms. Nathanson said that if a person was traveling to a destination in <br />Eugene or Springfield, they were still traveling to Eugene or Springfield, no matter what their route, and that <br />decision would not be affected by the existence of the parkway. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson questioned if redevelopment of the newly available property freed by the lack of parkway <br />construction would add to the transportation congestion problem in west Eugene. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that several councilors had suggested that the project could only be funded by deleting <br />projects from TransPlan or though a local bond measure. She said that was not the case and it was not the <br />way it should be posed to the voters. There were other sources of funding, and other funding over time that <br />would be available. She cited the funding from the new State transportation bill, and the potential of a <br />special funding district that involved a larger region with the cooperation of the Board of County Commis- <br />sioners. Ms. Nathanson said it was not fair to characterize the parkway's funding in such a manner. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pap~ noted that often, projects were funded through federal earmarks. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to substitute the motion on the floor <br /> with the staff-prepared motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought the staff-prepared motion captured the opinions of a majority of the council and she <br />supported it. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr thought the strategy reflected in the staff-prepared motion was well laid-out and it should be <br />supported if the parkway did not go forward. However, Mr. Farr said, there were people in the community <br />who thought the council had done wrong by killing the parkway without a vote. Those citizens might not <br />have all the information about the merits and drawbacks of the parkway now, but they would at the end of a <br />campaign. Mr. Farr was not convinced the parkway would have voter support, but at least at the end of the <br />campaign the public would be informed and it would not be second-guessing the actions of the council. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey indicated opposition at this time to the substitute motion. He said that the council should put <br />the measure to the voters and let them speak. He recalled a councilor's comment to the effect that the vote <br />on the parkway was a %napshot in time"; he pointed out that councilor was not prepared to take a similar <br />approach to a land use decision made several years ago, and advocated for consistency. Mayor Torrey <br />wanted to educate the citizens regarding the parkway and its implications. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />