Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor asked City Manager Taylor if he had read the many e-mails the City received objecting to his signing the MOU. City Manager Taylor said he had. He also met earlier in the week with community activists Mary O'Brien, Rob Zako, Lauri Segal, and Rob Handy to discuss their concerns at length. Ms. Taylor asked why the City was wasting money on something that might not be necessary. Mr. Corey said from his perspective, the reason to proceed was to give ODOT some assurance that the final design of Unit 1 would meet the City's design standards. That final design was necessary to achieve the final SEIS. Otherwise, ODOT could take the position that if the project could not be designed to City standards, the project should return to %quare one." The FHWA and ODOT findings stated that the project as designed met its stated purpose and intent and the need initially identified, with the exception of being able to meet current ODOT design standards for one segment. He suggested the MOU was an alternative to starting over. Ms. Taylor suggested the outcome of the process could be that one section of the parkway was built and the other section was not because of environmental concerns, leaving the community with something not needed when it could have been searching for other solutions to traffic problems. Ms. Taylor hoped the manager did not sign the MOU. Mr. Kelly asked if the final IGA would be reviewed by the council. City Attorney Glenn Klein said generally, an IGA is within the purview of the manager, but it depends on the commitments made in the IGA; for example, the manager does not have the authority to spend new money if it is not authorized in the City's budget. The manager could sign such an IGA only if it stated that the agreement was contingent upon council action. He said any policy changes required by the IGA would also be reviewed by the council. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the manager's authority in the matter and expressed appreciation that the discussion had been scheduled. He suggested that although City Manager Taylor had the authority to sign the IGA, he thought it would be appropriate for him to request the council's review. Regarding the issue of the City paying for the construction or maintenance costs of the project, Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the manager's remarks about what assurances he would seek, and noted that one of the assumptions used by project proponents during the 2001 election was that the State would pay for the project and its maintenance. Mr. Kelly believed that the reevaluation indicated the road was too congested for the State to want it. Mr. Corey suggested it was more appropriate to say some of the intersections become more congested than what was allowed by ODOT standards. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner that the project cost too much money for too little benefit. He was concerned that the public would feel deceived when it found within a few years there was no congestion relief as a result the project. The parkway at Seneca Road was projected to be at full capacity by 2025. Mr. Pap~ echoed Mr. Kelly's appreciation to the manager for scheduling the work session. Mr. Pap~ said jurisdictional transfers were a concern to many Oregon cities because of collateral leverages that were attached to them by the State. He indicated he would share a policy statement with City Manager Taylor that came out of the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) legislative committee he had recently attended. Mr. Pap~ asked if another SDEIS would be required. Mr. Corey said the reevaluation report would be sent MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 6 Work Session