CC Minutes - 01/23/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman said she could not support the suggested motion as stated. She said the council directed its MPC representatives to not move forward with an MTIP and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that contained the WEP but the current MTIP and STIP both contained the WEP and new projects as well. She said the council asked intergovernmental partners and community organizations to commence a process to design and build transportation projects in west Eugene to address congestion, safety and operation for all modes. She said instead she saw a long process that was not collaborative but rather a facilitated dialogue that was not different from the old processes. She asked if the alternatives for solving West Eugene transportation issues within the current environmental review process would be constrained by the purpose and need. Mr. Carlson replied in the affirmative. Ms. Bettman asked if the breadth of the assessment report would also be constrained by the purpose and need. Mr. Carlson replied that it would be but noted the assessment was more about whether there was willingness on the part of all parties to proceed with a discussion of alternatives than it was about the project itself. He indicated the alternatives would address the purpose and need of the EIS. Ms. Bettman stated that currently the only thing that would satisfy the purpose and need of the EIS was the WEP and if the process was constrained by the purpose and need in the existing EIS there was only one 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 10 Work Session