CC Minutes - 08/22/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman thought the council should be giving the community a choice of whether it wanted the West Eugene Parkway or another package of viable strategies and improvements that accomplished the same thing. She thought it biased to present the community with a choice of parkway or no parkway as it detracted from what the measure has to offer. Ms. Bettman disagreed with the mayor that the amendment provided clarity. She thought that the council was giving voters the choice of whether they want the parkway or whether they want another package of strategies and improvements in west Eugene that are also viable but a different way of doing things. She said she had concerns about the remaining text as she thought the explanation was overly focused on the parkway and did not describe what the strategies would be. Ms. Bettman said that, to be unbiased, the council should ensure each measure could stand on its own. She added she did not agree with the addition of text implying that each measure could pass, which would give the voters the illusion they "could have their cake and eat it, too." There was not enough funding for everything. Mr. Fart said the ballot measure precluded the parkway; the other measure did not preclude other improvements in west Eugene. He added that there was funding for transportation improvements beyond what was allocated through the State Transportation Improvement Program. The amendment to the motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. The main motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to retain the existing ballot title for Measure 20-54: West Eugene Parkway. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by changing the title to $88 Million West Eugene Parkway. Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Kelly to change the title to Pursue $88 Million Funding and Approvals for West Eugene Parkway. Ms. Nathanson suggested if a funding amount was associated with this title, it should be included in the other title, but pointed out the level of funding required for those strategies was not known. She opposed the amendment. Mr. Fart concurred with Ms. Nathanson. He also pointed out that the inclusion of a dollar figure in the title would mean people expected the cost to be exactly that. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Mr. Farr and Ms. Nathanson. He said that the $88 million included the $17 million already allocated, so the amendment was inaccurate. Mr. Meisner also opposed the amendment. He did not want to pack the title with too much information. He endorsed the approach suggested by Mr. Monk for the title as it was more accurate. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 5 Work Session