Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

by the FHWA to other cooperating federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), which would review the information and provide feedback to the FHWA and ODOT. The FHWA would use that feedback to determine which document to publish, a SDEIS or a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement. The FHWA's goal was the final issuance of a record of decision by the relevant federal regulatory agencies. Ms. Bettman termed the parkway a "stinking albatross" for which the State did not want to take responsibil- ity. With regard to the MOU, she acknowledged that the City Manager had the authority to negotiate such documents, but she thought in this case the authority for the project came from the ballot. The project was on the ballot as a State project. Every finding was predicated on that fact and on the fact the project fulfilled State objectives and was to be regional in nature. Ms. Bettman said that as part of the ElS process, other alternatives with local elements had been examined and rejected on the basis that they did not fulfill the purpose and need of the State project. Ms. Bettman said the project now being contemplated represented a very different project than had been evaluated in the SDEIS or included in TransPlan. Even if costs were not considered, the traffic projections, access, and purpose and need for the project were different. She considered that very significant, and said she did not think the manager had the authority to change the nature of the project from a full parkway to half a parkway without public testimony or further evaluation. She asked if the FWHA's reevaluation was for the entire project or half the project, and how relevant was that information if the project in question was completely different. Mayor Torrey said the councilors' opinions were no surprise given their past positions on the parkway. What was different was who would pay for and maintain the parkway. He noted that he had campaigned for the project on the basis that the State would pay for its construction and maintenance costs. Mayor Torrey believed the City's partnership with ODOT was healthier than it had been in the past. However, the City was at a crossroads. He believed the council's most important decision in the near-term was how to proceed with the project. He supported the action to be taken by the City Manager Taylor. If the manager did not sign the MOU, the State could maintain the City killed the project. It was ODOT's responsibility to follow up on the project. Mayor Torrey believed the City had done what it could in regard to the parkway. ODOT must deal with the BLM, the Army Corps of Engineers, and finding money to pay for the cost of the project. That was its job. Mayor Torrey said that ODOT was asking the City to enter into negotiations, and that was the responsible thing for the agency to do. He believed it would be irresponsible for Eugene to back out now. Mayor Torrey said that some might think that killing the parkway was a great idea, but it would also kill the City's ability to negotiate effectively with ODOT in the future for other projects, and that made no sense. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments. Ms. Solomon thanked the mayor for his comments. She expressed support for the parkway and emphasized the fact that the MOU was nonbinding. She reiterated her confidence in the manager's ability to negotiate for the City. Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Pap6 to share the LOC committee policy with the council. Mr. Pap6 agreed. Mr. Meisner asked what failure date could be expected for the intersections in the eastern phase of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 7 Work Session