Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/12/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall August 12, 2001 5 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Pat Farr, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson Gary Rayor, Gary Papd, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the council work session to order. A. Work Session and Action: Resolution 4687, Resolution of the City of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon, Calling a Special Election to Submit a Measure to the Voters of the City Concerning the Construction and Route of the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) City Attorney Glenn Klein provided a description of the resolutions from which the council could choose. 1. Follow the City Charter process for approval of a throughway or freeway. 2. Call an election on two separate measures that would go before the voters: A. Ask the voters whether the City should take actions to facilitate construction of the WEP; and B. Ask whether the City should address transportation problems in west Eugene with projects other than the WEP. Mayor Torrey called for a roundtable discussion from the council. Ms. Taylor stressed the importance of repeating that citizens had not yet taken a vote on whether to have a parkway. She said that the previous vote had been on a possible route. She added that the City did not know the extent or comprehend the value of the wetlands in the area chosen for the proposed parkway. Ms. Taylor noted that alternative measures to address traffic in west Eugene had already begun. She added that the majority of councilors had already agreed that a parkway through the wetlands was not a solution. She opined that calling for a special election was unwise and a decision made in haste without due consideration of the consequences and financial costs. Mr. Rayor commented that he had worked very hard to find a compromise in the proposed project. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session raised concern that the proposed parkway would fragment the existing wetlands. He said that he was looking for a resolution to the issue that citizens could understand. Ms. Bettman commented that many things had changed since the 1986 vote on the route of the proposed parkway. She cited reductions in government funding, new data about the significance of wetlands, and concerns over urban sprawl as examples. Ms. Bettman said that nothing had changed since the council had made the decision not to pursue the parkway the previous December. She said that the resolutions presented by staff did not have any more information about the consequences to other transportation projects or about funding issues. Mr. Meisner noted that whatever the 1986 vote had been for, it was the voters' perception that they had voted for a parkway. He added, however, that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had done nothing to facilitate construction of the parkway and that, even if there was an election, there was no guarantee that it would be built. Mr. Meisner said that he preferred the two-question resolution but raised concern that the resolution language presented by staff did not mention costs, consequences, trade-offs, or other jurisdictional approvals. He said that he could not approve of a resolution without some draft of the measure language. He stressed that any measure going before the voters needed to be as fully explained as possible. Ms. Nathanson stressed the need for the resolution language to be "crystal clear" as to what was going to happen. Ms. Nathanson commented that when citizen trust in government was lost, it affected every decision the council made over the course of years. She said that the council could not accomplish its goals without the trust and participation of the public. She went on to say that all of the recent planning done in west Eugene had been done on the assumption of the existence of a parkway and added that taking away transportation as an element of planning meant that the council had failed in its long-range planning obligations. Mr. Farr commented that there was a great deal of public confusion over the actions of the City Council. He opined that the public perception was that the council was "pulling the plug"on a plan that had been approved by the voters. He stressed that the council needed to clarify things in the minds of the community by allowing a discourse in the community by putting the issue on the ballot. He suggested a media campaign to help educate the public before the vote. Mr. Pap6 suggested that it was high time the matter was put to a vote so the City could find out whether the public really did support the parkway. He further suggested that more information needed to be added to the resolution regarding the fact that the funding for the project was uncertain and that it would delay other City transportation projects. Mr. Klein outlined ways of informing voters: 1. The Ballot Measure: Mr. Klein noted that, under State law, the ballot measure had to include a ballot caption of not more than 10 words, a question of not more than 20 words, and an expla- MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session nation of not more than 175 words. He said that the explanation was to inform voters of the consequences of the vote and its major effect. 2. The Voters Pamphlet: Mr. Klein said that the City Code allowed for the publication of a voters pamphlet that was not limited by 175 words. 3. Advertisement: Mr. Klein said that advertising needed to be neutral and present the facts if it was paid for by the City. Mr. Klein said that he had begun to craft ballot language that anticipated some of the council questions. He said the types of information he intended to include were exactly what Mr. Meisner had mentioned. He read the ballot question language he had drafted for each resolution and provided a summary of the explanations that he intended to write. Mr. Klein explained the process for the ballot title. He said that, once the council had called the election, there would be five days to craft a ballot title. He said that it was possible to appeal the ballot title and bring the matter before the council. He noted that the council would be subject to the same legal constraints in wording the ballot that the original writer was. Mr. Pap6 acknowledged that some things had changed since the 1986 vote. He noted, however, that one thing that had not changed was the need to see how the voters felt about the matter. Mr. Kelly express his disappointment in the language that had been presented by staff. He stressed the need for specific consequence language in the ballot title. Mr. Klein recommended against the council attempting to craft the ballot title language at this meeting. He said that general language recommendations might help but actual ballot title language would not. He noted that the council had occasionally adopted ballot titles itself, but the only way the council could adopt a ballot title was to override the code, and the only way to override the code was by ordinance, which required a public hearing for adoption. Mr. Kelly observed that there would not be time for an ordinance or an appeal by a council member. He said he was willing to submit the issue to a vote under two situations; 1. A double ballot measure so people had a choice other than the parkway or nothing. 2. The ballot title gives some of the consequences of the vote. Mr. Kelly said that unless someone could craft an amended resolution during the meeting it would be difficult to vote for. He raised concern over giving the voters false expectations by not offering a complete ballot question and expressed his desire that the City would not create a misleading ballot like measures 7 or 47. Mayor Torrey said that the ultimate question was, ~why would the council not submit the matter to a vote?" He said that he was willing to put both initiatives before the voters and let them make their choice. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session Mayor Torrey opined that unless there was a parkway, West 11th Avenue would eventually fail and would be very expensive to fix. He added that Barger Road, Highway 99, River Road, Delta Highway, and Interstate 5 would also be endangered. Mayor Torrey said that the core reason for the West Eugene Wetlands Plan was to be a model for wetland mitigation banking. He stressed that Eugene was a national model for that. Mayor Torrey noted that ODOT funds would be used to build the parkway. He opined that, if ODOT did not have the funding for the entire parkway, the worst thing that could happen was that the first phase of the project would get constructed. Regarding the idea that the parkway would lead to urban sprawl, Mayor Torrey opined that it would do the exact opposite. He stressed that the parkway would go into the core of a developed area. Mayor Torrey stressed the need for whatever decision the council made that evening to be defended and promoted. He said that the council should make the vote happen and not make excuses for not allowing it to happen. Ms. Nathanson noted that there had been comments that the State money for the parkway could be used for other local projects. She expressed her hope that the council and public was very clear that the money could not just be transferred to other projects. She stressed that there was no identified funding source for planning, acquisition, construction, or ongoing service of alternative projects to address the traffic problems of west Eugene. Mr. Farr stressed that the transportation plan for west Eugene was based upon the existence of the parkway whether the council liked it or not. Mr. Pap~ raised concern over Department of Land Conservation and Development comments regarding zoning changes that would have to be made and possible lawsuits that would occur. Mr. Kelly expressed his desire to see some general ballot language for the ballot that the council could approve before the end of the meeting. Mayor Torrey said that the voters pamphlet would provide adequate opportunity for comments for and against the parkway. He commented that there were no easy answers, and urged the council not to take options away from Eugene citizens. Ms. Taylor opined that the council was acting in haste without enough information. She commented that everything that might be done did not need to be put on a ballot. She added that one side of the issue would have all the money and raised concern that the people with money always won elections. She opined that the City could not count on people reading voters pamphlets thoroughly and raised concern over the costs involved in holding a general election. Mr. Rayor stressed the importance of full disclosure of all information on the issue so that citizens could make truly informed decisions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session Ms. Bettman stressed that the ballot wording was key and expressed her disappointment that there was not ballot language prepared for the meeting. She opined that the draft ballot language prepared so far by staff was misleading. She said most people would rely on the ballot language when casting their votes. Ms. Bettman raised concern over how much traffic the parkway would mitigate for a price of $88 million. She noted that the traffic projections for the WEP would take 48,000 daily trips down to 42,000. Mr. Meisner said that he preferred the dual measure. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the language of the draft resolutions, saying that there was not enough information presented. He said he wanted it to be clear to voters that even if the voters approved construction, the State and federal governments could still stop construction of the project. Mr. Klein offered some additional language to Section 1 of the first draft resolution. He said the first insert, after the second sentence, was: "This measure shall explain that, if the measure passes, 1) the entire WEP must be included in the 20-year construction project list in TransPlan and 2) adding the entire WEP would necessitate moving other projects, totaling approximately $71 million, to the unfunded project list or finding other federal, State, or local revenues to fund those projects." The second insert, after the sentence defining the second question, was; "This measure shall explain that if this measure passes, (1) the City would inform the State to cancel the WEP and 2) the City would work with other local and State governments on short-term and long-term strategies to address the transportation problems in west Eugene." In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding whether the same kind of language would be added to a resolution that only referred to the WEP and not the other option, Mr. Klein said that he would include the same kind of language. Mr. Meisner said he could see no drawback in having the two questions on the ballot and giving the voters a choice. He suggested adding a number 3 to the first question noting that half of the land the proposed parkway would be constructed on was in federal ownership and would require approvals/waivers to develop as a roadway. He stressed that it needed to be made clear to the voters that even if ODOT had the money for the project, it still might not get built. Ms. Bettman reiterated that funding the parkway would require moving other projects to the unfunded list. She opined that most people would not understand the implications of the unfunded project list. She said that the language proposed by Mr. Klein was misleading. Mr. Rayor suggested adding language to that suggested by Mr. Klein: ~3) since the 1986 vote, a compre- hensive West Eugene Wetlands Plan area had been created; 4) the western leg of the proposed parkway crossed that area; 5) the western leg of WEP crossed conservation lands in federal ownership and would require a waiver for right-of-way." Mr. Rayor also suggested adding language to the single question resolution: ~ 1) the environmental impacts are unknown, and 2) the costs are unknown." MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session Ms. Taylor reiterated her desire that there be no ballot at all. She said that possible lost funding was no excuse for considering the matter in such haste. She stressed that there was no funding source for the parkway except by dropping other projects. She stressed the importance of not acting in haste and said that she would vote against any proposed ballot. Mayor Torrey supported the two-question option. He expressed his trust in the City Manager and staff to construct ballot language that would reflect the legislative intent of the councilors. He added that, in the event that councilors were out of town, they should make themselves available electronically, He urged the council to resolve the issue and move on. Mr. Kelly said he would support the two-measure option if key points were mentioned in the resolution. He raised concern over the information that would be presented in the campaign. Mr. Pap~ expressed his desire to see something get on the ballot. He was in favor of the single-option resolution. He raised concern that it was misleading voters to offer the two options and added that there was potential to have improvements in other areas as well as having the West Eugene Parkway. However, he would support the dual question resolution if the majority of the council did so. He noted that alternative improvements would also affect the wetlands. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding confirmation that zoning and planning in west Eugene was based on the existence of the parkway, Dave Reinhard, of the City of Eugene Public Works Depart- ment, confirmed that the existence of the parkway was the basis of planning in that area. Mr. Farr raised concern that the traffic situation in west Eugene was getting worse and stressed that if the parkway was not built then something else needed to happen quickly. He noted that there was funding in place for the first phase of the parkway and added that he did not want to see councilors not representing west Eugene make decisions that would affect the citizens of west Eugene for years to come. He urged the council to put the matter on a ballot. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding what the West Eugene Wetlands Plan assumed about roads and the parkway alignment, Jan Childs said that the plan would need to be amended to allow the parkway. Ms. Nathanson noted that the writers of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan had taken into account the planned parkway. She added that wetland mitigation rules, set in place by the plan, would require double the acres of wetlands used by the parkway to be restored in another location. She expressed her desire to see the council vote on both resolutions and raised concern that there was no information about the impacts or costs of any measures besides the parkway taken to address traffic problems in west Eugene. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve Resolution 4687 (Resolution A), a resolution of the City of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon, calling a special elec- tion to submit a measure to the voters of the City concerning the construction and route of the West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Meisner said that he would not support the motion. He said that he was not interested in the single MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session measure in isolation. Ms. Nathanson supported Resolution A. She said that Resolution B did not specify costs, specific outcomes or consequences. Ms. Bettman said she would not support Resolution A. She commented that in our attempts to balance development and the environment, the environment never wins. She opined that the proposed parkway would destroy one of the largest wetlands in the Willamette Valley, and reiterated that it would only provide negligible traffic reduction on West 11th Avenue. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Pap6, Mr. Farr, and Ms. Nathanson voting in favor. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve Resolution B of the City of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon, calling a special election to submit a measure to the voters of the City concerning the transportation alternatives for west Eugene. Mr. Kelly suggested changes to the resolution language: · The projected $71 million amount needed to be changed from 1995 dollars to current val- ues. · The WEP would destroy 34 acres of wetlands. · Beyond federal approval, the project would need ODOT approval, City of Springfield ap- proval, Lane County Approval, Lane Transit District approval, and Federal Highway Ad- ministration approval. · WEP would decrease traffic levels on West 11th Avenue from an estimated 46,000 vehicles in 2015 to 38,000 in 2015. Mr. Pap6 offered language changes to the resolution: · The environmental consequences, including crossing wetlands, have yet to be determined. Mr. Pap6 stressed that the wetlands that would be crossed by the proposed parkway were not contiguous since there was a railroad currently going through them. Mr. Farr expressed his frustration in the process. He opined that it should be a simple matter to refer the matter to the voters except for the fact that councilors were trying to gerrymander the resolution while it was on the table. Mr. Kelly said he was only trying to remove the confusion from the voting public. Mr. Farr said that the word "destroy" did not help the public make an educated decision. He reiterated his frustration with the process. Ms. Nathanson said she would not support the resolution with the suggested language changes unless they were reworded. She said that 34 acres of wetland would be impacted but noted that with a mitigation factor of 2:1, the net increase in wetland acres would be an extra 34 acres. She also said that changing the MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session dollar amount did not make sense since it would only confuse matters. She went on to say that adding language about congestion was not fair unless the traffic reduction of other options was mentioned as well. Mr. Meisner said that he could support the resolution. He raised concern over word-smithing the document too much. Ms. Bettman said that the resolution was too weakly worded and would undermine the project if passed. Mr. Rayor proposed a vote. He also was concerned about word-smithing the resolution. Ms. Taylor stressed the importance of not contributing to the possibility of destroying wetlands. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to call the question. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Pap~, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Farr voting in favor. Mr. Kelly said he was working on language that included all of the points discussed and was still under 175 words and would submit it to staff. He said he could not support the resolution as worded by staff. Mayor Torrey noted that the meeting time had ended and called for a motion to extend the meeting by a set length of time. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to extend the meeting by 10 min- utes. The motion passed, 6:2' Ms. Taylor and Mr. Farr voting in opposition. Mr. Klein suggested that the resolution could be changed by having parenthesis that noted that the amounts mentioned were 1995 dollars. He suggested additional language that would note that the parkway would impact approximately 34 acres of wetlands that would require restoration of more than 34 acres of wetlands. He said that the reductions in traffic numbers could also be noted in the resolution. He suggested that the language should also note that the costs, environmental consequences, and reduction in traffic congestion had yet to be determined. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by adding the lan- guage suggested by Mr. Klein except that the word ~impact" be changed to %limi- nate," inclusion of the short- and long-term strategies as passed by council on August 6, 2001, and the traffic number cited be compared with a present day figure of 22,000 vehicles. Ms. Nathanson offered a friendly amendment, that was accepted, to change the word %liminate" to ~fill." Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the amendment by removing the language about wetland mitigation. The amendment to the amendment failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. Mayor Torrey stressed the importance of being accurate and presenting both sides of the issue. The amendment passed, 5:3; Mr. Pap~, Mr. Farr, and Ms. Nathanson voting in oppo- MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session sition. Mr. Pap6 stressed the importance of balancing language in the ballot. He questioned the validity of the traffic reduction numbers cited. Mr. Farr commented that there was no substantiation of the traffic numbers cited. Mr. Kelly noted that the traffic numbers cited were in the January 29, 2001, council meeting packet. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to call the question. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. The amended motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to extend the meeting by an additional five minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Torrey called for a motion giving him authority to appoint members for the proponent committees needed for the measures. Mr. Farr, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to give Mayor Torrey authority to ap- point the members. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Rayor voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to allocate the recommended staff budget for advertising the ballot measures and that those funds be allocated equally to each ballot measure. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session