CC Minutes - 01/23/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

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 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 11 Work Session