Laserfiche WebLink
circumstance, and the current council would be making a commitment for future councils, which <br />she did not think possible. Ms. Bettman pointed out the project was of regional significance, and <br />yet the amendment made it look like Eugene would shoulder the entire burden of making the <br />parkway happen. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr raised a point of personal privilege, saying that Ms. Bettman had spoken nine minutes <br />and he had spoken once. He thought that the mayor was giving more time to those who spoke <br />against the parkway than to those who supported the parkway. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 also raised a point of personal privilege, saying that with regard to Ms. Bettman's <br />comments regarding his brother's work on the commission, his brother worked very hard on the <br />commission with no compensation, and he took personal offense at her putting such remarks on <br />the record. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor opposed the amendment, characterizing it as being "like salt in the wound." He agreed <br />that the council could not commit future councils to a particular action. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked the difference between an amendment suggested earlier and the one just <br />read. Mr. Johnson saw no difference. He thought the resolution in the meeting packet was <br />satisfactory in terms of the commitment it made to ODOT. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked ODOT for input. Oregon Transportation Commissioner Randy Pap8 pointed <br />to the long time the parkway had been in the study and planning stages at the cost of $10 million <br />to this point, and the commission was looking for a firm commitment to the parkway from Eugene <br />to move forward with the project and the additional expenditure of the taxpayers' funds. He <br />agreed that the parkway was not just Eugene's sole responsibility. ODOT was seeking a good <br />faith expression of support for the parkway, and would be happy to offer the amendment to the <br />other metropolitan partners. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she would support the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the original resolution. He thought the amendment too vague, saying it would <br />"open the checkbook" indefinitely. There may be lawsuits; he questioned if the City would be <br />party to those lawsuits as a result of the amendment. He suggested that the council pass the <br />resolution and direct the manager to write to ODOT asking what else needed to occur. <br />Mr. Farr determined from Ms. Childs that the parkway was contemplated in the West Eugene <br />Wetlands Plan, a nationally recognized plan. He noted the mitigation that would occur as a result <br />of the plan and hoped it would address Ms. Taylor's concerns. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was also concerned about the breadth of the amendment, believing it was a <br />gratuitous request on the part of ODOT. He pointed out that, additionally, no action of the current <br />council was unalterable by a future council. He wanted a commitment from ODOT that it would <br />complete the project in the 20-year planning horizon. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said he would support the amendment in the event of a tie. He said that Springfield <br />had funding in the plan because ODOT trusted Springfield to follow through on its commitments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the amendment was also asking the council to prejudge the outcome of land <br />use planning processes. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 2001 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />