Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey did not think the amendment correctly reflected the subject of the ballot measure. It <br />did not discuss the source of funding or the fact that there was funding allocated. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. <br /> Taylor voting yes. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor voting <br /> no. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to retain the existing ballot <br /> question for Ballot Measure 20-53: Shaft City address transportation <br /> problems in west Eugene with projects other than the West Eugene <br /> Parkway? <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by <br /> substituting the following text: Shaft City address transportation problems in <br /> west Eugene with a combination of transportation improvement projects and <br /> strategies? <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought the motion consistent with the action taken by the council on August 6. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported Ms. Bettman's amendment for the reason she cited, and thought it additionally <br />responded to the concerns expressed by appellants. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart did not support the amendment because the council did not have the contemplated <br />improvements and strategies in place or the funding to support them. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to amend the amendment by <br /> substituting the following text: Shaft City address transportation in west <br /> Eugene with a combination of transportation projects and strategies other <br /> than the West Eugene Parkway? <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said that the amendment to the amendment made it clear what the council was asking <br />the voters, and made it clear that the measure was specific to improvements outside the parkway. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment to the amendment as campaigning for the parkway, and did <br />not support the removal of "improvements" because all the strategies discussed during the west <br />Eugene transportation charette represented improvements. She did not want to see the issues <br />framed in terms of "parkway or not the parkway." She thought it did not give the measure or the <br />transportation solutions contemplated a chance to stand on their own. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not support the amendment to the amendment and was unsure of his position on <br />the amendment. Neither captured the notion of partnership or the long-term nature of the <br />strategies, or the fact land use patterns would be affected. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the amendment failed, 4:3; Mr. Pap~, Mr. Fart, and Ms. <br /> Nathanson voting yes. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />