Laserfiche WebLink
thought the council should foster public discussion of the concept in the future. She did not think <br />the Citizen Charter Review Committee should be asked to spend more time on the subject, and <br />said the council should take up the discussion now. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with the comments of Mr. Meisner, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Nathanson. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not support having two or four at-large council seats because she thought it <br />would increase the population left in the wards with geographic boundaries, and the councilors <br />had enough work to do representing their constituents now without increasing it above what was <br />anticipated through redistricting. She said such a move would reduce a resident's ability to <br />access local government. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 7:1; Mr. Fart voting yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to adjourn the meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly advocated for a shod discussion on the subject of the input to the MPC representatives <br />on House Bill 21-42. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. PapS, Mr. Farr, and Ms. Nathanson voting yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson determined from the council that the five scenarios developed by staff would be <br />forwarded to the public. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to spend a maximum of ten <br /> minutes discussing the upcoming MPC agenda. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. <br /> Farr voting no. <br /> <br />C. MPC Agenda <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor solicited input from the councilors on the upcoming MPC agenda. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, David Reinhard of the Public Works Department did not <br />recall that the Oregon Transportation Commission had adopted a criterion of project readiness for <br />a project to qualify for funding. The commission had agreed that projects should be "on the <br />ground" no later than 2008. Mr. Kelly asked if the I-5/Beltline Phase 1 project was scheduled to <br />be complete by 2008. Mr. Reinhard said yes. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Reinhard to double-check the <br />answer to his question before Thursday's MPC meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if a project had to be in TransPlan or already in the planning stages to qualify <br />for funding. She pointed out the construction of the federal courthouse would require <br />improvements to the nearby State system, requiring a substantial State investment. She <br />questioned if there was some way to move forward on a project like that to compete for available <br />funding. Mr. Reinhard believed the project must be in TransPlan at this time to compete for <br />funding. He did not think the City would have an idea of what those improvements would be until <br />sometime in 2002. Ms. Bettman asked if there were existing projects with a potential impact on <br />the development that were not on the project list. Mr. Reinhard said no. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m. <br /> <br /> MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />