Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Solomon was not prepared to support a move to have an elected LTD Board at this time. She wanted to <br />have the discussion as a group at another point in time. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said his expectation would be that an LTD Board member would have to run in a sub-district, so <br />it would not be a district-wide campaign. He added that he had felt LTD to be unresponsive to him when he <br />had questions regarding the appointment process and also when he had been asked to comment on the <br />nominees. He thought the appointment process was “broken.” <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor believed the discussion to be a “classic example of persuasive arguments. . . on both sides.” He <br />was less inclined to put it in the document than to wait for a specific proposal that could come out of the <br />legislature. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor declared that the LTD Board was a very powerful group and an elected board would be a step <br />toward democracy. She predicted the LTD Board would become more powerful as people use transit more. <br />She added that the council had taken a stand on this in 2005 and no one had objected. She felt the CCIGR <br />and council could make changes if necessary if this came up in the legislature. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked if anyone had talked to the City’s other jurisdictional partners. City Manager Taylor and <br />Ms. Walston indicated that no one had done so. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman averred that certainly the City was taking many stands in the document that it had not vetted <br />with its partners. She said if the City was unwilling to take a stand on anything without seeing an actual bill <br />it would not need a legislative policies document. She believed supporting deletion of this item would be a <br />way of saying that the body was not interested in an elected board. <br /> <br />The motion to amend failed, 4:3; Mr. Papé, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in support. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to add on page 41 of the draft, under the <br />“Removal of Regulatory Barriers” section, a new bulleted comment after the first bullet <br />which reads: <br />“The closure of manufactured home parks, in particular, is currently a significant issue <br />locally and around the state. Owners of manufactures homes who rent their space in a <br />park may find themselves with either expensive alternatives or no alternatives if their <br />park is closed because the land has a higher value for a different use. Many of these <br />households are comprised of elderly people who find their investment and home at se- <br />vere risk. There are at least 25 parks and 1,830 spaces in Eugene, with many more <br />throughout Lane County. While Eugene had adopted very limited protections for some <br />tenants, there is no statewide legislation.” The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Taylor voting <br />in opposition. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to delete on page 56 of the draft, under <br />“Homeless Youth” all of the current language and replace it with the following: <br />“There are 41,000 homeless children in Oregon schools, of these 2,000 are unaccompa- <br />nied youth without family support. There are 24,000 homeless and runaway youth <br />statewide. Recommendations: <br />1. Eugene supports additional services and resources to meet the needs of homeless <br />and at-risk children and youth. This includes the recommendations from the Ore- <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />