Item 2A - Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

outcome and it was the WEP. She expressed concern that the only collaboration in a facilitated dialogue process would be selection of the facilitator. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to pursue completion of the assessment report via the US Institute of Environmental Conflict Resolution and bring it back to the council for review and approval. Mayor Piercy solicited questions and comments on the motion. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mayor Piercy explained that the facilitator would be chosen by the panel she and Mr. Carlson had identified and the facilitator would then reach out to all stakeholders, conduct an assessment and produce a report that would be brought back to all of the MPC members in the spring. She said there would then be a decision about whether to move forward. Mr. Papé asked if there was an estimate of cost in terms of dollars and staff time. Mr. Carlson said the current estimate of cost for the process was $50,000, which would be equally split between the City of Eugene and FHWA; the assessment phase was a smaller part of that and would cost approximately $12- 15,000. He said that very little staff time would be involved as the institute would be conducting the process. Mr. Papé asked if the council was willing to enter into the process and accept the outcome. He did not want to risk the City’s resources unless the council was willing to accept whatever recommendation came out of the process. Mr. Kelly asserted that it was dangerous to give an ironclad yes or no answer to any question regarding the process and he was disturbed that there was a work session on the issue because traditionally a work session was not held unless there was a new significant decision point and that had not occurred. He said because there was still disagreement between Eugene’s MPC representatives and ODOT and perhaps other partners on how the process would form, it was premature to state it was absolutely constrained by the purpose and need. He said the FHWA was liberally interpreting purpose and need and there could be a new purpose and need required by the ACOE. He said he would support the motion as it would achieve the assessment in a fairly short period of time and stakeholders would then be able to decide if there was a basis on which to move forward. Ms. Taylor remarked that she did not see how the process would produce results as the council had voted not to proceed with the parkway and pursue other solutions, while the other jurisdictions had not changed their positions. She did not see how a facilitator could help the situation and she was not willing to say the council would abide by any result. Ms. Bettman said the assessment report was a discrete portion of the process and would inform the council on whether there was a collaborative process in the future and whether it would be productive. She asked staff and the council’s MPC representatives to review TransPlan and the projects that were “futured” by inclusion of the WEP and formulate a strategy for getting those into the MTIP and STIP if the assessment report indicated a collaborative process was unlikely. She asked staff to research whether there was an updated purpose and need and provide a copy to the council if there was a new version. She contended that when the WEP was included in the Regional Transportation Plan by the MPC, the scope and function of the project was changed and the newly defined project was outside the purpose and need definition. Mr. Papé said he could not support either the suggested motion or Ms. Bettman’s motion as the public had voted against exploring alternatives to the WEP. He said he could not in good conscience maintain his MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 10 Work Session