Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Ortiz agreed the information would be useful, but was concerned about the burden it would place on <br />staff resources. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy said the information request seemed to be placing the cart before the horse until there was <br />agreement that a topic of discussion at the JEO meeting would be subsidies and urban renewal. She said if <br />there was agreement, then staff from all three jurisdictions should be involved in developing the information. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said that several members of the council from both sides of the table and the mayor had <br />articulated several priorities that were also articulated by Springfield and Lane County as subjects for <br />discussion at the JEO meeting and that would be a productive use of everyone's time. He did not want to <br />devalue the topics Ms. Bettman had raised, but was concerned about coming to the table and insisting on a <br />discussion of issues that were not priorities for the other jurisdictions. He said that would not help build <br />good relationships with those jurisdictions. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor agreed the information requested by Ms. Bettman was important, but he trusted the City <br />Manager's sense of the staff's workload and felt that it would be premature to require the information at this <br />point. He preferred to approach the issue in a more logical and thoughtful manner. He was prepared to <br />move to support the City Manager's recommendations for a priority list. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that topics discussed at the JEO meeting should be ones that affected all jurisdictions and <br />that would include urban renewal and protecting farmland. <br /> <br />The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark <br />voting in opposition and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in <br />favor. The mayor cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the list of items recommended by <br />the City Manager as Eugene's priorities for the joint elected officials meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz offered a friendly amendment to include on the priorities list a conversation on <br />race and the memorandum of agreement signed by all jurisdictions. Mr. Pryor and Ms. <br />Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka outlined four issues related to transportation planning and TransPlan: <br /> <br />? <br /> The disconnect between the federally required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and TransPlan <br />because of different requirements and planning cycles <br />? <br /> The schedule for trying to bring the plans into sync and allocation of staff resources <br />? <br /> Revamping the public involvement aspect of transportation planning <br />? <br /> Local project prioritization criteria <br /> <br />Mr. Poling offered a friendly amendment to include on the priorities list the topic of public <br />safety and collaboration with other jurisdictions. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amend- <br />ment; Ms. Bettman declined to accept the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to include public safety on the priorities list. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated she would vote no on the motion because the City of Eugene was better positioned <br />financially to take care of its residents and what was on the table from Lane County was specifically a <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />