Laserfiche WebLink
The amendment to the motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. <br /> Kelly voting yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion with the <br /> following text: Shaft City work with government partners to develop a <br /> comprehensive, long-term transportation and land use plan for west Eugene? <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner wanted to emphasize the concept of partnerships and the interrelationships between <br />transportation and land use planning. In addition, he thought shod-term solutions inadequate, and <br />a long-term plan was needed. He reiterated his interest in two measures that could pass. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was concerned that the motion did not address the shod-term needs, and suggested <br />the motion be modified by referring to "shod- and long-term transportation, land use plan..." Mr. <br />Lidz suggested the alternative wording, Shaft City work with government partners to pursue <br />comprehensive transportation and land use plan for west Eugene? Mr. Meisner and Ms. Bettman <br />accepted the text proposed by Mr. Lidz. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed a comprehensive long-term plan was required, and thought it was implicit if the <br />measure passed that it would be done. However, because he did not believe that the measures <br />should be worded so both could pass, and he wanted to present the voters with a clear choice. If <br />the voters perceived the two measures as alternatives to each other, he feared that the voters <br />would be more supportive of a project over a plan. <br /> <br />Due to a concern raised by Mr. Pap~ about the connotations of the word "plan," Mr. Meisner, <br />maker of the motion, suggested the word "plan" be replaced by "strategy." Ms. Bettman, the <br />second, accepted the change. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr supported the amendment. He emphasized the long-term nature of the approach, saying <br />that it was important people understood action would not occur immediately. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she did not support the amendment as it was not sufficiently specific. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner and Ms. Bettman accepted a friendly amendment from Ms. Nathanson to substitute <br />the following language: Shaft City work with government partners to pursue comprehensive <br />transportation and land use strategies and projects for west Eugene? <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to retain the current question for <br /> the West Eugene Parkway: Shaft City take actions to facilitate construction <br /> of the West Eugene Parkway? <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the question to read: <br /> Shaft City attempt to obtain Sxx million in funding and initiate required <br /> approvals to facilitate construction of the West Eugene Parkway? <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson suggested that "xx" could be replaced by "$71.2 million." Mr. Kelly believed the figure <br />was in error as it was based on 1995 dollars, and should be inflated to current dollars. Mr. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />