Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/24/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall May 24, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. A. WORK SESSION: th Review of Draft Request for Proposals for 10 and Charnelton Development Site Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA) to order. City Manager Dennis Taylor announced that Denny Braud, Senior Development Analyst for the Community Development Division of the Planning and Development Department (PDD) would present a draft Request th for Proposals (RFP) for the 10 and Charnelton development site. Mr. Braud noted that the site was no longer being referred to as the “Sears building site.” He recalled that at the council’s April 12 council work session, staff was directed to bring back a draft RFP for the sale and th development of the 10 and Charnelton site. He said staff consulted with the Planning Commission, as the council had asked, and also met with the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC). He reported that several general themes emerged from the discussions: ? The City should consider how any proposals submitted advanced the Downtown Plan and comple- ment other investments the City made in the area; ? The City should gauge how the proposals would contribute to the revitalization of downtown; ? The City should encourage creativity and should strive to attract a broad range of proposals for the site; ? A less prescriptive approach up front would have the greatest potential for capturing more interest and resulting in a greater variety of proposals; ? An emphasis should be placed on the quality and the amount of detail received from proposals in order to best gauge how each would contribute to the City’s goals for downtown. Mr. Braud related that the Planning Commission also discussed the emerging concept of opportunity sites th and how it might apply to the site. He said although the 10 and Charnelton site had not been designated as an opportunity site, the draft RFP did reference and encourage proposals that were consistent with the emerging opportunity site concepts. He underscored that the RFP, as proposed, was intentionally designed to inspire investor confidence in the site and in the downtown area. Mr. Braud listed some of the elements of the development objectives: ? To draw in an experienced development team with a track record of superior design; MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 1 Work Session ? To foster urban design elements that create an interesting and inviting pedestrian experience; ? To promote active uses, particularly on the ground floor; ? To encourage sustainable development components such as green building features; ? Timeliness of development; ? Financial feasibility; ? To bring a net financial return to the City. Mr. Braud conveyed staff’s recommendation, which was to have the RFP out by the end of the month, responses due at the beginning of August, and for the URA consideration and selection process to occur in September or October. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Mr. Kelly wondered if the site had potential to be a City Hall site. He asked if it was possible to consider waiting on the RFP. He acknowledged that realistically, such construction would not likely begin before 2010. He was interested in determining whether his colleagues or staff had any interest in the site for that purpose. Mr. Kelly also questioned whether the 60-day turnaround time would be sufficient to get the quantity and quality of the proposals that was desired. Mr. Braud replied that both the 2002 version of this RFP and the RFP process that resulted in the Tate development project featured a similar turnaround. City Manager Taylor added that the RFP had been anticipated from the beginning of the year and several interested parties had already approached the City. Mr. Kelly averred that a less prescriptive RFP should not translate into a less detailed result. He wanted the development objectives to be responded to in detail. Mr. Kelly pointed to page 392 of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), under B(2), and questioned the need for floor plans at the RFP stage. He supported the inclusion of elevations and a site plan. Mayor Piercy asked if the site had been considered as a city hall site for the last RFP process. Mr. Braud replied that it had been considered for both a courthouse and a city hall site in 1999, but had not been considered for it in the 2002 process. Ms. Taylor felt the site would make a great location for a city hall. She supported having a more prescrip- tive RFP because there were certain standards the City would uphold. She thought retail was one area in the requirements that should be less prescriptive. She asked what percentage of the retail space in the Broadway place was vacant. Mr. Braud estimated the vacancy rate to be 50 percent. Ms. Taylor thought the City should reconsider placing retail space on the ground floor. She asked if housing had been considered as a use for the ground floor. Mr. Braud responded that no retail uses were required, but active uses were encouraged on the ground level and this could include retail, housing, or office uses. Ms. Taylor commented that offices would not stay open at night and she thought that being open later should be “part of it.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman cited the last sentence of the first paragraph of page 389 of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and disagreed with the suggestion that any consideration be given to assembly or joint development of other adjacent parcels. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Taylor’s comments regarding retail. She did not believe there should be any “public subsidy for commercial space.” She supported the encouragement of creativity, but wished to stress that the council had a responsibility to determine the “highest and best use” for a public piece of property. She thought the best use for the property would be housing as it would bring more people to the downtown. She asserted that private developers shied away from this type of development unless there was a public subsidy. Ms. Bettman averred that mixed-use did not mean a mix of uses all in one building, but that the area should represent a mix of uses. She thought there were many successful high-density residential developments in thriving sections of other cities that were primarily residential with small commercial limited to one corner of a building every few blocks. She opined that too much retail space would lead to “over-commercialization.” Ms. Bettman maintained that opportunity siting, as forwarded from the council, was all residential. She felt exceptions could be made for a “corner shop or salon” but basically the intention was to increase residential density. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the RFP for the sale and develop- th ment of the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street development site, and direct the City Man- ager to issue a request for proposals consistent with the preliminary schedule included in the draft RFP, with final review of the RFP responses and approval of a project for the site provided by the Urban Renewal Agency. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the ‘Development Objectives’ to in- clude: “As a publicly solicited project, with the potential for public subsidies and incentives, this development addresses the needs of the community. More housing units and varied housing options are needed to accommodate projected population demographics. Central housing is a key element in the Growth Management Policies and the Downtown Plan. Downtown housing is essential for creating the critical mass of residents to support re- tail; and to concentrate populations where services already exist within walking distance; and where transit and pedestrian amenities are easily and efficiently available. Housing downtown requires public sector support in order to be competitive. Proposals for the site will recognize this development site as a rare opportunity to address the significant need for downtown housing units by providing for multi-storied, very high density hous- ing, preferably accommodating ownership options as well as affordable units.” Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to insert the word ‘preferred’ before the sentence beginning with ‘proposals for the site. . .’ The maker of the motion accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly indicated his support for the amendment. He cited several successful housing projects in the downtown area and said he believed housing in that area to be a “cornerstone.” He noted the RFP would not require, but rather would strongly encourage the construction of housing at the site. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 3 Work Session City Manager Taylor understood the amendment to preclude all other uses of the site. He said the addition of the word ‘preferred’ clarified that it meant to encourage the development of housing. Ms. Solomon ascertained from staff that the amendment would not require housing-only proposals. She stressed that she did not want to hamstring development or lose out on an opportunity with a developer who did not want to build housing. Mr. Pryor echoed Ms. Solomon’s sentiments. Mayor Piercy called for the vote. The motion to approve the amendment passed, 7:0 (Mr. Papé had not yet arrived at the meeting). Ms. Bettman indicated that she had more changes she wished to make to the document. Ms. Bettman moved to change the first point on page 390 of the AIS under Active Uses, as follows (changes indicated in bold): “1. Multiple stories with active ground floors …” Mr. Kelly understood that the floor/area ratio (FAR) for the site was 2.0 so there would be no way the site could be developed without multiple stories. He said the amendment would be redundant. Ms. Bettman averred that there was a caveat that some flexibility in the plan or zoning would be allowed for a proposal that met development objectives. Mr. Kelly pointed out that it would take a land use code change to reduce the FAR. Ms. Bettman withdrew her amendment. Ms. Bettman moved to change the second point on page 390 of the AIS under Active Uses to read, as follows: “2. Very high density residential, particularly ownership housing.” The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to change the third point on page 390 of the AIS under Active Uses to read, as follows: “3. Major employment center for very high-quality jobs and extended hours of occu- pancy.” Ms. Solomon commented that it would not be known for certain at the time of the RFP who would be the occupant. She did not believe it was within the purview of the council to dictate the hours an employment center should be open. She thought it could become a limiting factor for proposals that would be submitted to the City. Ms. Bettman averred that her amendment merely reinforced the language in the Downtown Plan. Mr. Poling pointed out that the sentence before the point Ms. Bettman wished to amend indicated that this applied to “preferred projects” and was not absolute. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Pryor shared his reluctance to keep “adding more words.” He did not think the language needed to include subjective terminology such as “very high quality.” Ms. Bettman asked what the language in the community standards for the Enterprise Zone had been. Mr. Braud replied that it had defined the jobs as having a living wage as compared to a benchmark. Mr. Papé arrived at 12:26 pm. Ms. Solomon reiterated that a business that ultimately rented from the owner of the development would not be something the City could determine in advance. Ms. Taylor remarked that if the City provided a subsidy, it would be “good” to require a living wage. She also supported the inclusion of language regarding having extended hours. She wanted to increase the nighttime population of the downtown area in order to make the area safer. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Ortiz voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Papé, and Mr. Pryor voting in op- position. The Mayor cast a vote in favor of the amendment and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy opined that the amendment would not “hogtie” anyone. Mr. Papé commented that it was his understanding that subsidies were a possibility but were not absolutely a part of the package. Ms. Bettman pointed to language on page 389 that indicated a preferred development team would possess a “strong relationship with key tenants” and asserted that this assumed that tenants would be retail. Mr. Braud responded that a person who came to the table with a tenant “in hand” would make a better proposal. as it was a benefit to the development to have a strong and desirable tenant. He said a “spec” building with office and retail with no tenants identified would be less attractive. Ms. Bettman asked what likelihood there was that anyone would speculate in a building with no tenants. Mr. Braud replied that it was unlikely but possible. Ms. Ortiz was comfortable with the language as written. She thought a desire to know who the tenants would be would benefit the RFP process. Mr. Kelly agreed that the sentence added nothing and could be perceived as restricting the sort of proposals the City was willing to consider. He suggested it be stricken. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the Development Objectives to de- lete the third point regarding a strong relationship with key tenants. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman opined that “preempting City Hall” might be ill-conceived. The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 5 Work Session The Mayor adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and convened the meeting of the City Council at 12:26 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 6 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Collaborative Process to Identify a Transportation Solution for West Eugene and the FY06-FY09 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) City Manager Taylor thanked the council for its forbearance for allowing the work session on this item so that the council could align with the results of the Osprey Group’s conflict assessment and so that staff could comply with council direction in time to bring the discussion about the collaborative process to the next meeting of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). He asked City Engineer Mark Schoening, to provide an overview. Mr. Schoening reviewed the process to-date. He stated that subsequent to the motion the City Council passed which directed the City Manager to scope a process for a transportation solution for West Eugene, the Fiscal Year (FY) 06-09 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) had not been approved and was still not approved, though there had been numerous amendments to the FY05-07 MTIP to keep critical projects moving forward. He related that at the last meeting, the MPC received a report from Metropolitan Policy Organization (MPO) staff outlining options for moving forward with either the proposed FY06-09 MTIP or a new FY07-11 MTIP. He noted, regarding the latter, that this was the new way such programs were put together under the recent federal transportation legislation. He said MPO staff also discussed the consequences of not having an adopted MTIP and what that would mean to member jurisdictions. Mr. Schoening discussed the Osprey Group’s findings, which included three options for moving forward: 1. Proceed with the current National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had undertaken for the West Eugene Parkway (WEP); 2. Have a heightened commitment to public engagement in the WEP. 3. Form a collaborative process. Mr. Schoening reported that the Osprey Group concluded that a collaborative process could best address the transportation issues in West Eugene. Mr. Schoening stated that the action requested of the council was to direct the council representatives to the MPC to propose a resolution for adoption by the MPC that would essentially adopt the FY06-09 MTIP, moving the WEP to the last year of that cycle, would include MPC endorsement and participation in a collaborative process, would request that ODOT delay conclusion of its NEPA process on the WEP until the collaborative process had concluded, and would stipulate that ODOT consider the results of the process. He said the other part of the motion addressed the funding mechanism by directing the City’s representatives to the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC), through the City Manager, to submit an application for Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funding in the amount of $200,000 to fund the collabora- tive process. He added that, assuming an affirmative vote on the motion before the council, the next step would be for City staff to bring this up before the Transportation Planning Committee on May 25 so that it was apprized of what would occur on the MPC’s June 8 agenda. He said staff would also request to have this item on the agenda for the June 7 meeting of the Citizen Advisory Committee to the MPC. Mayor Piercy thanked staff for working hard to put the wording together for the council. She reported that Congressman Peter DeFazio and Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski expressed their support for the collaborative process. She said many members of the environmental community were contacted and expressed support for the process. The Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce expressed its support as well. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 7 Work Session She commented that whichever side one favored with regard to the WEP, it was a “leap of faith.” She predicted the result would be an alternative solution that would better meet everyone’s objectives. Mr. Kelly agreed with the mayor’s assessment. He clarified that the Eugene representatives put forth a motion at the November MPC meeting that would have adopted the MTIP without the WEP and it had not been supported. He noted that he and the mayor had not been obstructing other projects. Mr. Kelly felt the resolution represented the only chance the City had to avoid years of litigation regarding the WEP. He said if the collaborative process was “the hope,” it was important to find out what would bring the other agencies to the table. He thought ODOT was afraid the funding for completion of its current environmental work would vanish if the NEPA process was discontinued and, in that case, some repayment of millions of dollars would be required. He stated that the resolution would move the WEP out to the end of the MTIP and would stave off ODOT’s concerns. Ms. Bettman asked for a specific definition of ‘collaborative process.’ City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that the way the resolution used it referred to the process laid out in the Osprey Report. Ms. Bettman declared that language to be not specific. Mr. Klein stated that if a court were ever to review the resolution, it would likely only look at the Osprey Report. He said, beyond that, a court would perhaps look at a dictionary definition of ‘collaborative process.’ Mayor Piercy stated that there was a specific process used by United States Institution for Environmental Conflict Resolution (USIECR) facilitators to bring diverse communities to the table and work together toward mutual resolution. Ms. Bettman opined that the collaborative process would be dictated by the Osprey Group. Mayor Piercy disagreed. She maintained that it would be facilitated by the group and not dictated by it. City Manager Taylor explained that should the resolution be adopted by the council and the MPC, the City would initiate a process to hire people, possibly the Osprey Group and possibly another group. Ms. Bettman asked who would initiate the process. City Manager Taylor replied that the partners in the assessment through the MPC would initiate it. Mr. Kelly underscored that the rules would remain the same; therefore, the City of Eugene would have veto power over those rules. City Manager Taylor added that the other jurisdictional partners would welcome a process in which they were part of the design of the collaborative process from its origin. Ms. Bettman conveyed her dissatisfaction with previous collaborative efforts with the MPC or the MPO. She opined that the only hope for the process would be for it to be a standard process that was objective and neutral to which the community would adhere. She wanted it to be outside of the existing “power struggle.” Ms. Bettman asked when the next MTIP update would occur. Mr. Schoening replied that the FY05-07 MTIP ended at the end of FY07. He stated that without an approved update, the jurisdictions would be without an MTIP after September 30, 2007. He reiterated that there were two actions before the MPC: 1) to move the WEP out to FY09 in the MTIP for FY06-09; and 2) to adopt the FY06-FY09 MTIP. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Bettman interjected her next question, asking when the WEP could “show back up in the MTIP.” Mr. Schoening reiterated that the intent would be to push the WEP to FY09 in order to allow for the collabora- tive process. Ms. Bettman declared that the resolution did not say that. Mr. Klein cited the section of the resolution, Attachment A in the AIS, in which it stated the following under “Be it resolved”: “(2) The FY06-09 MTIP, Exhibit B, as modified by the reprogramming of the WEP to FY09...” Ms. Bettman asked if this meant that ODOT would stop working toward the record of decision. Mr. Schoening reiterated that the motion would request that ODOT not conclude the NEPA process, which was the record of decision, prior to the end of the collaborative process. Ms. Bettman asked if this meant that ODOT would continue to work on the NEPA process. Tom Schwetz, Transportation Program Manager for the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), explained that postponing the completion of the NEPA process would imply that they would continue to work toward the drafting of the record of decision. He said this still had to be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for its approval. He thought ODOT would be asked to defer sending the final draft of the record of decision to the FHWA for approval. Mr. Schoening pointed out that the motion requested that ODOT include the results of the collaborative process as part of the NEPA process. Ms. Bettman asked if this meant the results would automatically be implemented. City Manager Taylor responded that it depended on the nature of what the consensus recommendation that arose from the collaborative process. In response to further questioning from Ms. Bettman, Mayor Piercy stated that the hope was for people with various points of view to come together and arrive at a configuration that would be acceptable. Ms. Bettman found the language regarding the acceptability of the result to be vague. She asked what would happen if the result was a modified route through West Eugene. Mr. Schoening replied that if it met the existing purpose and need of the current Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), it could move forward within the NEPA process. He said if it was outside of the issue and need, it would trigger a new environ- mental process. Mr. Kelly added that it would also have to be included in a subsequent RTP or MTIP if it was different than the project that was currently in the MTIP. Mr. Klein stated that other steps “in addition to ODOT” would be required if it was too far outside of the alignment approved by the voters in 1986. If that was the case, a new vote would be required for the City of Eugene to participate in the project. Also, if the proposed route was outside the alignment in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP), it would require amendments to that plan, which the council would have to approve. He underscored that there were a number of steps that would have to be taken if the project was different from what ODOT had been analyzing thus far. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Kelly and Mayor Piercy for working through this process. She indicated she would support the motion when it was put on the table. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Kelly pointed out that one way or another the process would have to be affirmed by the jurisdictions of the MPC. He observed that there would be no collaborative process without the MPC. Mr. Pryor stated that the transportation problem in west Eugene had to be resolved. He supported the WEP, but it had been stalled for 20 years. He remained supportive of what the WEP could do. He believed in collaboration but felt there should be limits on what it could do. He averred that the process could not “go on endlessly” nor could it be prohibitively expensive. He wanted to be clear in the resolution that there would be a placeholder on the money. He also wished to ensure that the collaborative process was truly th collaborative. He recalled that a significant collaborative process had been used in the project to widen 6 th and 7 avenues and that had culminated in no result. He did not wish to see this scenario repeated. He expressed his willingness to approve of the process with the caveat that it be sincere and have a tangible result for the community. Ms. Solomon wished to ensure that whoever served on the committee would come to the table with the understanding at the outset of the process that there was a problem to be solved and would not spend time arguing about whether or not there was a traffic issue. It was important to her that committee members signed on to a statement that indicating they would support the result. She asked who would be on the collaborative committee. City Manager Taylor related that the Osprey Group suggested a group of 25 “wise people” who represented stakeholders from the various points of view. In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, City Manager Taylor surmised that the committee would be selected by the interjurisdictional partners. Mr. Papé opined that whatever track the community ended up pursuing could bring about litigation. Mr. Papé still perceived the option before the council as going against the will of the voters, as 60 percent of voters opposed an alternate process for the WEP. He did not regret the hiring the Osprey Group because he thought it could inform a ballot measure asking voters to consider whether or not to embark on another process. While he would be in favor of incorporating it into a ballot measure, he could not support the resolution. Ms. Taylor expressed skepticism regarding the outcome of the process. She wondered where the committee members would be drawn from and how it would be determined whether they were wise. She heard the Osprey Group recommendation that the committee not be made up with the usual people who involved themselves in such issues. She did not think there were people in the community who did not already have some preconceived notions about the project. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Klein clarified that a significant change to the route would fall outside of what the voters had approved. He stated that the voters did not have to approve something under the charter in order for ODOT to build a road. He explained that the charter indicated that if the City of Eugene was going to participate in some way, then the voters would have to approve it. He was uncertain what the solution would be from the collaborative process, but if it was a significant enough change, it would require a vote. He noted that there had been a number of small changes in the two decades the WEP had been under consideration, moving parts of the route a quarter mile in one direction or another, and those changes did not require a vote. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if the resolution was approved. Mr. Schoening replied that Principal Civil Engineer Chris Henry, Senior Transportation Planner Lisa Gardner, and he would bring the resolution to the Transportation Planning Committee to brief it on the vote. Subsequent to this, it would be presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to the MPC on June 7 and then to the MPC itself on June 8. Ms. Taylor asked who served on the CAC. Mr. Schwetz responded that 15 members served on the CAC. Mr. Kelly noted some of the members of that body. Mr. Poling shared Mr. Pryor and Ms. Solomon’s sentiments. He also agreed with Mr. Papé that the council had an obligation to honor the will of the voters. He was glad to see that the intent of the proposed resolution was to have the funding placeholder remain and that the NEPA process would be continued. He expressed some concern that the resolution lacked language that ensured that the result would be an agreement that would be a binding document. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the council’s representative to the MPC request the MPC to adopt the proposed resolution shown as Attachment A and that the City Manager direct the City’s representatives on the TPC to submit to the TPC a project appli- cation for $200,000 in STP-U funds for the collaborative process to identify a transporta- tion solution for West Eugene that has widespread understanding and acceptability and that the council’s representatives to MPC support that expenditure of STP-U money when the matter comes to MPC. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the fifth WHEREAS clause to add to the end of the clause the following: “…with the understanding that the process would not exceed 18 months in duration or $200,000.” Mr. Poling spoke to his amendment. He said he found it difficult to understand how someone could look for funds without knowing the cost or duration of a project. He felt the process could “go on until 3005” if no one put their foot down. He could not support the resolution without the amendment. Ms. Bettman wondered if environmentalists would support the collaborative process if they knew the incentive for collaboration was being “undermined” by programming the WEP into FY09. She did not understand why the decision was being “rushed.” She had many questions that she felt were not yet answered. She indicated she would vote against it until she felt her questions were answered to her satisfaction. Mr. Kelly opined that not taking the next step would be “as good of a definition of insanity” as he could find. He believed that action was necessary before the exact dollar amount and timeline would be known. He averred that “through no fault” of the council and Mayor, a number of the “powers that be” from other jurisdictions perceived the MPC to be at an impasse that threatened its existence. He felt that if the council did not come forward with a way out of the situation, it could end up with a worse scenario. He would not support the amendment. He submitted that the questions that Ms. Bettman needed answers for would be answered through the collaborative process. Ms. Taylor conveyed her opposition to the amendment. She asked if there was a strong reason to vote on the resolution at the present meeting. City Manager Taylor replied that there would not be another work session opportunity to consider this issue before the MPC met. He said based on the MPC’s procedures, MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 11 Work Session should the motion pass, the resolution would be to direct staff to bring it back the following month. He felt this would give the process time for some of the details to be worked through. Ms. Taylor was concerned because the WEP was still in the MTIP. She preferred to wait to vote. She asked if “something terrible” would happen if it did not go to the June MPC meeting. Mr. Schwetz stated that one objective was to get the FY06-09 MTIP, as submitted to the MPC in November 2005, passed before the federal government declared it overdue. He related that the federal government had instructed the MPO that the MPC’s August meeting would be the last chance to adopt the FY06-09 MTIP. Mr. Pryor believed the amendment was necessary for all of the same reasons that Mr. Kelly believed it was not. He felt time was something in short supply. He thought if the process were to take longer than 18 months it would not likely work. He wanted to place some certainty on it. Mr. Papé asked if the MPC could have a “special meeting.” Mr. Schwetz replied that the MPC had nothing that would keep it from convening a special meeting aside from practical issues. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; councilors Poling, Papé, Pryor, and Solomon vot- ing in favor and councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz, and Kelly voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in support of the amendment and the motion passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Bettman observed that the process had gone on for years. She said the MPC was a “conflict resolution body” and the City of Eugene was at an impasse there. She opined that the MPC was not really interested in conflict resolution. She felt the resolution took the WEP out in name only, because ODOT would continue its work on the process. She could not support the resolution because her questions had not been answered. She opined that the research would not be neutral because of MPC and TPC oversight. She thought the resolution would put all of the pieces in place to come up with the same conclusion that the community had already “always come up with.” Ms. Ortiz expressed discomfort with having the WEP back in the project list, but she wanted to have faith that the process could reach a resolution. She reiterated her support for the resolution. She noted that she had not supported the amendment because she did not want to place time constraints on the committee as it could hamper their ability to come to a decision with full understanding. Mr. Kelly averred that the resolution represented the only reasonable plan. He did not see any other path that anyone proposed within legal parameters that had a chance of addressing transportation in any reasonable timeframe. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the item. The motion failed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in favor. Ms. Bettman opined that if the resolution was a harbinger of the collaborative process it was a “bad omen.” She did not feel she had been allowed enough time to review the materials and ask questions. She said if the collaborative process would “cater to one faction and ignore another” it would not be a collaborative process. She thought the motion to table should have been approved. She opposed the resolution. Mr. Papé said he would oppose the resolution because he believed it to be counter to the will of the voters. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 12 Work Session Mayor Piercy expressed remorse that some councilors did not feel there had been a lot of collaboration “working at this moment.” She believed there had been a “tremendous amount” of collaboration. She hoped the council would have the confidence in the two Eugene representatives to the MPC and that they heard what was being said and would work on behalf of the City. She called for the vote. The motion to approve the resolution passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Papé voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 13 Work Session