Laserfiche WebLink
Beltline. If the project was moved to the futures list, where would the community get the money to <br />start the studies for that project. Mr. Reinhard referred to footnote 1, which was a <br />recommendation for a Beltline facility plan with funding to come from ©D©T. Mr. Meisner asked if <br />the funding was sufficient or the project a priority for ©D©T. Mr. Reinhard did not know. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ms. Taylor's remarks, Mr. Meisner noted that the Bethel ward had not supported the <br />library project; did that mean the council should not build a Bethel branch library? He did not think <br />so, adding he felt bound by a citywide vote. He reiterated his interest in knowing the effects of <br />postponing the Beltline project. <br /> <br />Mr. Reinhard said there was an interrelationship between the facilities, but reminded the council <br />the traffic modeling indicated that a small percentage of traffic using the current West 11th Avenue <br />west of Beltline would be taking the Beltline. The traffic primarily travels down 6th and 7th avenues <br />and disperse from there. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he was a little unhappy with the continued message, received for months from <br />©D©T, that the only reason it was interested in the parkway was for the western portion, which <br />connected to Beltline and I-5. He said he felt manipulated. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor supported the resolution in the packet. He agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks. He had <br />voted against referring the parkway to the voters and had opposed the parkway personally, and <br />his ward voted 3:2 against it. However, he acknowledged the citywide vote on the topic and said <br />it was a watershed decision about where the community was going. Mr. Rayor hoped in the future <br />the transportation system could shift away from car and oil dependancy. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed that none of the projects were yet approved by ©D©T, but that did not diminish <br />the importance of the 20-year list. The project list was the shared wisdom of four jurisdictions. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked about the expected time line for completion of the parkway. Robed Pirrie of <br />©D©T said the time line was dependent on the priority given the project by the MPC as part of the <br />regional prioritization process. If given a priority, the project would be completed in a 20-year time <br />frame. Mr. Kelly asked if ©D©T had a sense of the end date. Mr. Pirrie said ©D©T had no <br />specificity about the end date. He said it was possible it could be finished in year 19 of the <br />planning period. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted the council's receipt of an e-mail message from a constituent who expressed <br />concern that there were ©D©T statements that speak to road projects such as Beltline Phase 3 <br />being integral to the success of the parkway. He asked staff to research those implications before <br />the MPC meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman spoke to the difficulty of the vote to be cast, which created a conflicts between <br />values. She thought the parkway was not a good project and she hoped it did not get built as the <br />community would be paying for it in many ways for decades. <br /> <br />Regarding the dynamics of the campaign, Ms. Bettman said that it was a textbook example of how <br />unlimited spending eclipsed any unbiased debate. She thought the influence of "big money" had <br />poisoned the democratic process in Eugene. If the opponents of the project had half the money <br />the proponents had, the project would not have been approved. She thought money tainted the <br />outcome of the election. Ms. Bettman said that even though she held those beliefs, the system <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />