Item 2A - Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

integrity as a public official by considering alternatives without asking voters if they wished to reverse their 2001 decision. Mr. Pryor said the vagaries of the situation made it very difficult and there was a lack of clarity about what to do next and which process would move stakeholders forward expeditiously. He agreed with Mr. Papé that it was no longer certain what the public wanted, but his opinion was that the 2001 vote should stand until the voters told the council differently. He said public policy decisions were being made on what the council thought the public wanted and there should be better definition. He was considering supporting Ms. Bettman’s motion as it was limited and could move the process to a more productive point. He asked why a work session had been scheduled on the issue. Mayor Piercy stated that she had requested a work session in order to provide the council with an update on the process. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of questions and comments on the motion. Mr. Kelly said the assessment called for in Ms. Bettman’s motion would provide an assemblage of facts that could help clarify the situation and was a short-term effort. He said if the WEP alternatives vote in 2001 was considered, the vote on the WEP should also be considered as the project that was voted on was significantly different than its current conception. Regarding Mr. Papé’s question about whether the council was prepared to abide by the collaborative process, he said that was tantamount to agreeing to support a certain outcome in a land use decision before the hearing was held. He said when that question was raised at the MPC meeting other members had similar concerns. City Manager Taylor remarked that considerable progress had been made in carrying out the council’s direction in October 2005 to consult with partners and community organizations and scope out a plan. He was gratified by the connection with FHWA and over the course of months as the process was explained, progress had been made to engage the key stakeholders in a fundamental first step. He said the City’s support of time sensitive MTIP projects demonstrated its willingness to work with partners and he was hopeful that all of those small steps would lead to a more informed discussion in the future. He hoped that Ms. Bettman’s motion included the spirit of the motion and the direction given to him by the council on October 26, 2005. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Papé voting in opposition. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 11 Work Session