Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman supported the staff-prepared motion. She appreciated Ms. Nathanson's comments and <br />suggested addition. She noted other omissions in the list she would like to see included. Regarding short- <br />term funding strategies, she thought it possible the State funding could be reallocated to the City in the <br />competitive funding process. If the council had the strength of unanimity, she thought it had a good chance <br />of retaining the funding to support other projects in west Eugene that would address operational efficiencies. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked that the list of short-range ideas be expanded by examination of the land use issues that <br />came up at the charette, the potential of an overlay zone, and the first two items under the list of other ideas: <br />1) consideration of Royal Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard as more major east-west throughways in lieu of <br />the WEP, and 2) investigation of possible improvements to West 11th Avenue between Beltline and Garfield <br />Street, either as a ~main street" or as a %oulevard" with parallel access roads for adjacent property. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested the first item in #3 on the list be amended by replacing ~the railroad tracks" with <br />~Roosevelt Boulevard" as the northern boundary of the area described for improved connectivity. <br /> <br />Mr. Gary Pap~ thanked the councilors who participated in the charette as well as ODOT and Commissioner <br />Pap~ for coming to the meeting. He said that the council worked hard over the last six months to find a <br />solution to a problem that exists now, not just in the future. Mr. Gary Pap~ said the council needed a <br />strategy to address that problem now. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare a <br /> resolution to place the route of the WEP as required by the Eugene City Charter in an <br /> alignment as designated in the supplemental ElS and to schedule a special City <br /> Council meeting as soon as possible to consider the resolution for a measure for the <br /> next available ballot. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly determined that there were no other items on the November ballot, so the election would be a <br />City-only election, at a cost of $70,000 to $90,000. Mr. Kelly asked if the motion was specific to the <br />measure offered the voters in 1986. Mr. Gary Pap~ said his motion was designed to ask the community if it <br />wanted the parkway or not. Mr. Kelly said that there were many things the community wanted, but the <br />question was, how would it be paid for? He said he would support the motion if a source of funding was <br />attached. He noted the lack of mention in the letter from the OTC about the federal requirement that the <br />entire parkway project be included in TransPlan, which must be fiscally constrained, and that could lead to <br />the elimination of other projects in the plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend that the ballot measure would <br /> include the necessary amount of bond funding to complete the parkway. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson indicated opposition to the amendment, saying that it was not right for Eugene citizens to <br />pay for 100 percent of the costs of such a facility, which served nonresidents as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that the public needed to understand that the project was an $80 million project, and that if <br />the community said yes, it would need to find $70 million that would be taken from other projects. He said <br />that all the road facilities on the project list were failing simultaneously, but not all projects could be built. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />