Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner indicated support for the motion on the condition that the council would be considering a <br />comprehensive ballot measure. He wanted the costs and consequences of the parkway brought back to the <br />council as part of the ballot measure explanation, and asked if that was inherent in the motion. Mr. Gary <br />Pap6 said yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Gary Pap6 if it was the intent of the motion that the ballot measure on the November <br />ballot would include an explanation of the parkway's financial consequences and other project impacts. Mr. <br />Pap6 said yes, if impacts to other projects were the consequences of the construction of the parkway. He <br />was not sure, however, that all the financial consequences could be fully explained. Mr. Pap6 wanted <br />information on the issues freely dispersed throughout the community. <br />Mr. Johnson said the discussion of the financial implications would be included in the City Charter-required <br />explanation for a limited access highway published in the newspaper; the ballot measure and explanation <br />were too limited to explain all the impacts. Mr. Kelly asked if it was Mr. Gary Pap6's intent that the ballot <br />measure would explain the impacts, or at least summarize them. Mr. Pap6 said he was unsure there was <br />room for all Mr. Kelly wanted to see included, but he wanted the voting public to be informed on the issue <br />before it voted. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he could not support the motion because he thought there was room to summarize possible <br />impacts in the measure. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the council approved the ballot title and explanation. <br />Mr. Kelly said that because there would be little time for "massaging and improving" the measure at the <br />special meeting at which it was discussed, he could not support the motion. <br /> <br />Speaking to remarks earlier made by Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly pointed out that TransPlan was financially <br />constrained by law and the community must show expected revenues over the planning period. He did not <br />think it was possible to list as expected revenues the hope the federal Congressional delegation would <br />succeed in earmarking the needed funding. <br /> <br /> The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Rayor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. <br /> Kelly voting no; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap6, and Mr. Farr voting yes; <br /> Mayor Torrey voted in support of the motion and the final vote was 5:4 in favor of <br /> the motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to reaffirm and clarify the council posi- <br /> tion on the original West Eugene Parkway project; direct staff to work with ODOT <br /> and other partners on immediate priorities for West Eugene; and to direct staff to re- <br /> mm within six months with a recommended work program for a longer-term west <br /> Eugene strategy. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly determined from Ms. Taylor that the motion continued to include the changes offered by Ms. <br />Nathanson, Ms. Bettman, and himself. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr opposed the motion as preempting the motion just passed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. Pap6, to amend the motion by deleting all text to the first <br /> semi-colon, so the motion would read: Direct staff to work with ODOT and other <br /> partners on immediate priorities for west Eugene and direct staff to return within <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />