Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 09/22/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall September 22, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Hospital Update City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item. He recalled the council's June 16 work session on the topic of hospital siting and said staff had been working with McKenzie-Willamette/Triad and the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) since that time to achieve the council's goal of having a hospital in the city center. Steady progress was being made. City Manager Taylor felt confident that in the near-term, EWEB would succeed in finding another site. In the meantime, staff was working on an option agreement between McKenzie-Willamette/Triad and EWEB that he anticipated would be finalized in the next month. That agreement would establish the timing and the price of the real estate transaction. Today's discussion would focus on the issue of transportation access to the EWEB site. Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle and Public Works Director Kurt Corey were present for the item. Mr. Coyle recalled that in June, the council discussed the concerns expressed by McKenzie- Willamette/Triad in regard to the site, which were largely focused on cost, timing, and site access. He indicated that staff of both the Planning and Development and Public Works departments had been working with McKenzie-Willamette Hospital on the EWEB site and with EWEB on opportunities for alternative sites. Ms. Nathanson arrived. Mr. Coyle said the issue of three access points was raised at the June 16 meeting, and the possible extension of Agate Street was one of three options examined as a result of the meeting. He said staff had looked at the design and costs of the three alternatives, which were outlined on a large aerial map of the area in question in red (Alternative 1), orange (Alternative 2), and yellow (Alternative 3). Mr. Coyle noted the letter sent to the council by McKenzie-Willamette/Triad's chief executive officer, Roy Orr, which indicated the hospital's belief that the site could function safely with two unimpeded access points if the second was constructed immediately adjacent to the hospital campus (e.g., the extension of Patterson Street), and if it was open and functioning by the target date of late 2007. Mr. Corey briefly described the three alternatives and noted their associated costs and the estimated time needed to complete each project. He indicated that alternatives 1 and 2 were projected to cost $10 million, MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 1 Work Session while Alternative 3 was projected to cost $19.5 million. He noted the City Manager's recommendation for Alternative 1, the extension of Patterson Street. Mayor Torrey called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct staff to pursue a development agreement for the benefit of providing access to McKenzie- Willamette Medical Center via Patterson Street. Ms. Bettman said it appeared from the letter from Mr. Orr that the Patterson extension was acceptable to the hospital, so she saw no reason to consider the additional costs that would be created by the Agate Street extension alternatives. She was prepared to support the motion. Ms. Bettman suggested that in the future, given that the hospital was advocating for no particular access routing, the City consider those access options that had the broadest community benefit. She suggested that the proposed improvements to the 3rd/4th connector and the addition of an access over the tracks that was equally spaced between the Chambers overpass and the Ferry Street Bridge would assist in creating additional, unimpeded access to the hospital site. Ms. Bettman recalled that the last motion the council passed regarding the topic had indicated the council's support for the project was contingent on the $85 million project being built. That was not mentioned in the staff-crafted motion before the council; she asked if the motion should be amended to convey the council's intent. Mayor Torrey advised Ms. Bettman to craft an amendment to the motion to convey that intent. Mr. Kelly thanked Mr. Orr for his correspondence. He termed the proposed alternative a ~win-win" situation as it allowed the council to save money by avoiding the Agate extension at this time, it meant there was one less road project needed for the hospital to begin operations, and it avoided community controversy about the potential for a road north of the railroad tracks. He supported the motion. Mr. Kelly noted McKenzie-Willamette Hospital's late-2007 target date mentioned in the letter from Mr. Orr and urged City Manager Taylor to return to the council if there was anything that the council could do to help the hospital achieve that target. He said dealing with the railroad could be a challenge and suggested there might be a need to get Oregon's congressional delegation involved at some point. City Manager Taylor indicated staff's belief it would take four years to complete the project because of the nature of the project and the other parties involved, especially Union Pacific Railroad. He urged the council not to focus on any particular date. The target date mentioned was dependent on many, many things. Mr. Kelly emphasized that his interest was on partnering with the hospital, and being of assistance if that assistance was needed. Mr. Kelly determined from City Manager Taylor that the development agreement mentioned in the motion would be between the City of Eugene and McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. City Manager Taylor did not know if EWEB would be an eventual party to the agreement. Mr. Pap~ determined from City Manager Taylor that McKenzie-Willamette/Triad needed to have a hospital site before it could apply to the State for a certificate of need. He asked where EWEB was in the process of finding a new site. City Manager Taylor indicated that EWEB was actively working to identify sites and had narrowed its list of possible sites. The utility was involved in active negotiations for site acquisition. Mr. Pap~ asserted that people in the local medical community was very interested in knowing where the hospital would be %ooner rather than later" and he suggested the City apply what pressure or leverage it MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 2 Work Session could upon EWEB to make the relocation happen. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Corey said the City did not control all the elements driving the timing of the project, citing as examples the need for track crossing authorization from Union Pacific Railroad, the need for a greenway permit, etc. The City had no control over the outcome of the regulatory processes or potential appeals resulting from those processes, so he was reluctant to commit to a timeline. He assured the council that staff would do the best it could to expedite the process. Mr. Pap6 asked if the City could begin to work with the railroad now. Mr. Corey said staff had already begun to work with the railroad on the design concept. The City would need to make a formal application to Union Pacific Railroad to eliminate the at-grade crossing for a grade-separated crossing. Mr. Pap6 again reiterated his interest in making progress on the hospital relocation, and urged the staff to make the official application to Union Pacific Railroad, as he anticipated that would be the longest process. Mr. Pap6 also thanked Mr. Orr for his letter. Mr. Meisner also supported the motion. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that the proposal was a win-win for the community and for McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. Speaking to the timeline, Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Pap6's interest in seeing progress. He acknowledged the constraints that existed. Speaking to Mr. Pap6's comments about the length of the railroad's process, Mr. Meisner said that he had discussed the issue with the railroad's vice president at the depot dedication on September 20, and the railroad never said no to an opportunity to get rid of an at-grade crossing. He did not think Union Pacific would impede the process. Mr. Meisner stated for the record that the motion under consideration directed staff to not pursue the extension of Agate Street at this time. Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Corey that staff contemplated a downward grade of about 5-1/2 percent to get to a clearance of about 17 feet under the railroad tracks. He said the City would not necessarily use the existing Patterson alignment; the railroad crossing could be anywhere within a 300- to 400-foot location along the tracks and may not be exactly at Patterson Street. Ms. Taylor was happy to abandon the thought of extending Agate Street. She asked if the proposed alternative would affect the possible "daylighting" of the Millrace in the area. Mr. Corey said nothing currently under discussion for development in the greater courthouse area appeared to preclude the construction of that project at some point. Ms. Taylor asked about the impact of PeaceHealth's move to Springfield on the project and what would happen if PeaceHealth did not get approval to build in that community. Mr. Corey did not think that was an issue that was particularly germane to the Memorandum of Understanding. Ms. Taylor suggested that if PeaceHealth was unable to move, McKenzie-Willamette/Triad would not be able to build a new hospital. City Manager Taylor did not think that was the case. He believed a certificate of need process would be required for McKenzie-Willamette/Triad regardless of where PeaceHealth moved. Mayor Torrey asked staff to communicate the need for speed to EWEB. He thought the City Council could MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 3 Work Session reach its goal of having the hospital in Eugene and he hoped EWEB would assist in achieving that goal. Ms. Bettman, with the concurrence of the second, Mr. Poling, offered the following revised motion to the body: "Move to direct staff to pursue a development agreement for the benefit of providing access to McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center via Patterson Street, contingent upon McKenzie Willamette Medical Center providing an $85 million hospital development with a substantial Willamette River setback." The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: West Eugene Parkway Memorandum of Understanding City Manager Taylor introduced the item, reporting that the Oregon Department of Transportation had asked the City to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding street standards and maintenance negotiations about how the West Eugene Parkway might be developed and maintained. He asked Mr. Corey to discuss the background of the request and the subject of negotiations for the MOU. Mr. Corey recalled that the project was initiated in 1980 by ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Since its inception, the project had been the subject of many studies, including a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) prepared in 1997. That SDEIS was in the process of being reevaluated to determine what factors had changed in the last few years, and whether the project can be advanced to the publication of a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement or if a new SDEIS must be prepared. Mr. Corey said as a result of the reevaluation, it was determined that the parkway east of Beltline (Unit lA) would be too congested at peak hours by 2025 to meet ODOT's design standards. Subsequently, ODOT asked the City to consider a jurisdictional transfer for Unit 1 following construction, because while Unit lA would not meet ODOT's mobility and accessibility standards, it would meet the City of Eugene's design standards for arterial streets. The MOU would acknowledge to ODOT that the City would enter into negotiations for an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to discuss the specifics of a jurisdictional transfer and all the related issues. Regarding the specific differences between ODOT and City standards, Mr. Corey said that City standards were more liberal in allowing congestion at intersections; in addition, ODOT required 30-percent reserve capacity from the design year, which was not a City requirement. City Manager Taylor anticipated that as a result of the negotiations that would shape the IGA, ODOT would pay for the construction and maintenance of the West Eugene Parkway. He said that was the City's previous expectation, and he would continue to convey that expectation to ODOT. He intended to sign the MOU and hoped to return with an IGA on an expedited timeframe in partnership with Lane County. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments, reminding the council it would not take action on the MOU; the city manager had charter authority to sign it. Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Corey that the MOU did not bind the City to future maintenance of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 4 Work Session parkway. Mr. Corey said the MOU was not binding outside of binding the involved parties to agree to discuss an IGA. Mr. Poling asked if the council and Board of County Commissioners would have to approve the ultimate IGA. City Manager Taylor said yes. He said that signing the MOU would assist ODOT in moving forward on the project. He agreed with a remark from Mr. Poling that the MOU was one step in many to move the project along. Ms. Nathanson said the parkway was to have been a State project that created continuous connections to and between cities. She thought the State would still be interested in the project if the need still existed. Since the provision of connections between communities was a State responsibility, some of the questions and comments from project opponents concerned her. Ms. Nathanson believed the MOU provided WEP opponents with further doubt or ammunition against the project. Ms. Nathanson did not see how Eugene or Lane County would benefit if the State would not maintain the parkway, and was happy to hear the manager say his terms for the IGA included State responsibility for construction and maintenance costs. Ms. Nathanson was disappointed that the City had gone through multiple reevaluations of the project while the need for the project was growing rather than decreasing. She said it seemed as though the State planning process had placed the community in a ~Catch 22" position; if it completed the project it was wrong, but if it did not complete the project it was also wrong. If the State waited any longer to do the project, the problem would get worse, but the City could not redesign the project without starting out at square one, creating an endless loop which prevented the project from being done. Ms. Solomon agreed with Ms. Nathanson. She said she was confident in the manager's negotiating skills and believed he would come to an agreement with ODOT that benefited all citizens, especially those who voted for the parkway. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Nathanson that traffic conditions in west Eugene were worse, and he was discouraged to read that the planned route did not meet State standards. However, Mr. Meisner acknowl- edged the MOU was within the manager's authority. Mr. Meisner noted his long-held belief that the project cost too much money and would have too little effect, and that appeared to be confirmed by the State. He noted his membership on Lane Transit District's Bus Rapid Transit Steering Committee, which had discussed placing a route on Highway 126 to serve downtown Eugene and Springfield. The committee eventually gave up on many of the elements necessary for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along that highway because the State was unwilling to accommodate local standards or the regional goal represented by BRT. Now the State was proposing to transfer jurisdiction of the parkway because of local standards. Mr. Meisner asked about other examples in Oregon where State highways were being built to local standards. In response, Mr. Corey said the City's partnership with ODOT was healthier now than it had been in the past. He thought the City and State were on the verge of getting many good things accom- plished. He believed municipalities were better stewards of the transportation infrastructure inside their communities. He was an advocate for jurisdictional transfer of roadway facilities in company with the appropriate funding. Mr. Corey cited the extension of 42nd Street in Springfield as an example of a roadway constructed by the State to local standards and then turned over to the local city for maintenance. He said such transfers were quite common. Mr. Meisner requested a written response to his question. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 5 Work Session 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 by the FHWA to other cooperating federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 6 Work Session 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 parkway given the anticipated congestion. Mr. Corey indicated he would secure that information. Mr. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Meisner said the council was talking about a ~huge" investment, and he was concerned that by building the parkway to a lesser standard the State would be investing in an %ven sooner" failure date. Ms. Taylor believed a public process was needed because the project was essentially a new one. She questioned whether the manager had the authority to sign the MOU given the changed nature of the project. Regardless of whether he had the authority, she continued to advocate for a public process. Mr. Kelly agreed with the mayor that the City partnership relationship with ODOT had improved. However, he believed the MOU would ultimately be ;;fodder for the recycling pile." There were many barriers facing the parkway. He noted that many alternatives to the parkway were rejected by ODOT because they did not meet ODOT's standards, but now its own proposal does not meet its standards, leading the Army Corps of Engineers to suggest that the process be reopened and other alternatives considered. Mr. Pap6 said the project was contentious no matter who paid for it. He continued to believe the project had community support and agreed with the mayor that Eugene needed to keep up the pressure on the State. With regard to the location of the intersections and the parkway design, Mr. Pap6 said that was not known when the vote occurred and he did not think they should be an issue now. He did not want Eugene to be the scapegoat if the project was killed. Ms. Bettman said the community voted on a highway, not a local street, and the MOU specifically called the parkway a local street that was a link between downtown and points west. The project described in TransPlan was also described as a State project meeting regional needs. She said the project was very different than that initially contemplated. Ms. Bettman said that ODOT rejected many alternatives for the same reason it was attempting to transfer the project and that concerned her because she had placed an alternative on the table that was rejected because it did not meet the State need and purpose for the project. The alternative used existing local streets that have excess capacity at the current time to create a network. Mayor Torrey suggested the council consider a future in which there was no parkway. Who would pay to address congestion east of the Beltline if ODOT was no longer involved? He said that was a reason for Eugene to %tay at the table" as long as possible. He said the manager and staff should be given every opportunity to make this work for Eugene. Mayor Torrey solicited a third round of council comments. Mr. Kelly cited additional barriers to the project, including the federal prohibition on roadways crossing land acquired by the BLM using Land and Water Conservation Funds, the fact the West Eugene Wetlands Plan amendments facilitating the parkway had not been adopted by the BLM, the fact the FHWA had not initiated the wetlands mitigation process, the fact the reevaluation report stated that West 11th Avenue at Bailey Hill was in failure by 2025 with or without the parkway, and the funding gap of $30 million beyond what the community had secured in revising TransPlan by eliminating other projects. Mr. Kelly did not believe the City had access management requirements, and asked what would happen once the parkway was a City street. What legal guarantee was there that every property owner along the route would not take driveway access to the parkway? Mr. Corey said that the City would have whatever guarantee it included in the IGA. Mr. Kelly questioned whether ODOT could impose State requirements on a City street, saying that preventing a land owner from taking access to a local street %melled like a land MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 8 Work Session use decision" to him. He suggested further research be done on the question. Mr. Kelly anticipated that the project would take many years to come to fruition if it ever did, and asked when and how the community could say "okay, the 'WEP' will be what the WEP will be and may not get built," and place serious staff time and money into looking into other alternatives. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Kelly. She said the council should be looking at alternative transportation strategies for improving congestion in west Eugene, and the farther the community went with the parkway, the farther away it got from a solution. Ms. Bettman thought access management was a very serious issue. She said the information provided to her suggested there would be no access management, leading to serious problems given the fact the street was to be a local city street. Ms. Bettman spoke to the issue of funding, noting that in her review of the packet she kept encountering past letters from ODOT calling for instant decisions on the part of the council or the funding would be at risk, and four years later the $17 million was still available. She believed the City could have benefited by negotiating to use that money for a different solution, and it would have been spent long ago with some effect. Ms. Bettman reiterated her interest in looking at other alternatives. She advised City Manager Dennis Taylor to consult with legal counsel before he signed the MOU. She wanted to know how the change being proposed affected TransPlan and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. She wanted to know the legal parameters involved. Mr. Klein said there would be many authority questions that arise depending on the nature of the negotiations. He said that Ms. Bettman's questions were good questions that must be answered, depending on the nature of what was in the IGA. Mr. Klein stressed the non-binding nature of the MOU, which stipulated that negotiations between Eugene, Lane County, and ODOT would happen. He said the manager had the authority to sign this MOU, but there were other authority questions legal counsel must resolve before he could advise the manager to sign the IGA. Ms. Bettman agreed the MOU was not legally binding, but was intended to document that future discussions will occur to define operations and maintenance roles and responsibilities. It states that the rules would change without telling the council how they would change. If the MOU had no significance, ODOT would not insist upon it. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly, Mr. Pap~ recalled the two-day charette moderated by Judge Michael Hogan in 2002 and said no other viable alternatives had arisen out of the meeting. Mayor Torrey asked the manager to keep the council informed on the status of negotiations with the State. Speaking to the ODOT representatives, he asked them to let the council know sooner rather than later if the project was not going to happen. Mayor Torrey believed that further delay did the community a tremendous disservice. He pointed out that the City lost opportunities to participate in the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) 1, 2, and 3 because the TransPlan budget had been fully dedicated to the parkway and the community had no way of applying for those dollars. He said the parkway had never been the top priority project in the community; the highest priority was between River Road and 1-5 on the Beltline. Mayor Torrey said government should not be so slow in solving such problems. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 9 Work Session Mayor Torrey reminded the council that the community had directed the City through its vote not to study another alternative. Mayor Torrey asked City Manager Taylor to write a letter to ODOT asking if the agency would participate with Eugene and Lane County in an alternative plan with staff and funding for the area east of the Beltline if the parkway was determined to no longer be a viable project. Mayor Torrey solicited a fourth round of council comments. Speaking to Mr. Papa's comments, Mr. Kelly said there were other %ack of the envelope" alternatives that arose out of the design charette, including the final recommendation made by charette participants that ODOT issue a record of no decision and not build the parkway. He suggested it was not possible to develop viable alternatives in a two-day charette, and the only way the community would come to a resolution for the west Eugene area was to give the design of alternatives the same level of intense consideration that had gone into the parkway. Ms. Bettman requested a memorandum from legal counsel discussing how the changed project would relate to all the past legal and public processes that had been gone through locally, and if the manager could change the nature of the project through the MOU or if TransPlan must be amended. Ms. Bettman agreed with the mayor that the community missed many opportunities to address safety and operational efficiency issues in west Eugene because it had committed to the parkway. Ms. Bettman recalled that half a parkway was heavily favored at the charette, but the State representatives %hot it down" because they could not guarantee the State could participate in the cost of such a project and because it did not fulfill the State's purpose and need for the parkway. Now the State was proposing a different project that probably would not compare favorably with some of the alternatives previously on the table. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 10 Work Session