Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman stressed that the ballot wording was key and expressed her disappointment that there was not <br />ballot language prepared for the meeting. She opined that the draft ballot language prepared so far by staff <br />was misleading. She said most people would rely on the ballot language when casting their votes. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman raised concern over how much traffic the parkway would mitigate for a price of $88 million. <br />She noted that the traffic projections for the WEP would take 48,000 daily trips down to 42,000. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he preferred the dual measure. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the language of <br />the draft resolutions, saying that there was not enough information presented. He said he wanted it to be <br />clear to voters that even if the voters approved construction, the State and federal governments could still <br />stop construction of the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein offered some additional language to Section 1 of the first draft resolution. He said the first insert, <br />after the second sentence, was: "This measure shall explain that, if the measure passes, 1) the entire <br />WEP must be included in the 20-year construction project list in TransPlan and 2) adding the entire <br />WEP would necessitate moving other projects, totaling approximately $71 million, to the unfunded <br />project list or finding other federal, State, or local revenues to fund those projects." <br /> <br />The second insert, after the sentence defining the second question, was; "This measure shall explain that if <br />this measure passes, (1) the City would inform the State to cancel the WEP and 2) the City would <br />work with other local and State governments on short-term and long-term strategies to address the <br />transportation problems in west Eugene." <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding whether the same kind of language would be added <br />to a resolution that only referred to the WEP and not the other option, Mr. Klein said that he would include <br />the same kind of language. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he could see no drawback in having the two questions on the ballot and giving the voters a <br />choice. He suggested adding a number 3 to the first question noting that half of the land the proposed <br />parkway would be constructed on was in federal ownership and would require approvals/waivers to develop <br />as a roadway. He stressed that it needed to be made clear to the voters that even if ODOT had the money <br />for the project, it still might not get built. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman reiterated that funding the parkway would require moving other projects to the unfunded list. <br />She opined that most people would not understand the implications of the unfunded project list. She said <br />that the language proposed by Mr. Klein was misleading. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor suggested adding language to that suggested by Mr. Klein: ~3) since the 1986 vote, a compre- <br />hensive West Eugene Wetlands Plan area had been created; 4) the western leg of the proposed parkway <br />crossed that area; 5) the western leg of WEP crossed conservation lands in federal ownership and would <br />require a waiver for right-of-way." <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor also suggested adding language to the single question resolution: ~ 1) the environmental impacts <br />are unknown, and 2) the costs are unknown." <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />