06/14/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . the other jurisdictions, he wondered if Eugene would then be unable to act e in its own interest in dealing with those problems. However, on the other hand, he wondered if actions taken by the EIC for outlying areas may be contrary to Eugene's best interests, what the City could do in that instance. Mr. Williams said he felt it more important to cooperate as an urban area. He did not think common solutions to most problems would be that difficult. He noted Eugene always has the right to withdraw from the EIC, but felt to instruct Mr. Haws to attempt to control action at the start is a guarantee that would ensure the EIC would not function properly. Mr. Bradley was against the amendment, saying Lane County was willing to fund the first year and it would mean a great deal to the smaller municipalities. He felt it would be a mistake to force funding on other jurisdictions, as Lane County was providing an opportunity for free participation. He said that Eugene could fund if it wanted, but others should be allowed to participate freely. Mr. Obie expressed concern regarding the funding in that two years from now Eugene may find itself disproportionately sharing the load. He felt the rules should be set straight at the beginning. He was in favor of accepting Lane County's proposal for funding the first year, and as many years as the County wished to fund. Mr. Haws said he felt it important the City contribute something in the e first year. Mr. Delay said he would not support the amendment as he felt it was not addressing the issue. He felt it more important to represent the City's interest and get agreement with the other jurisdictions rather than taking the option of pulling out later, as he felt that not a responsible direction for Council to take. He suggested perhaps consideration of other mechanisms to protect the economic interests of this area, and noted he felt the City had always acted in good faith with responsibility. Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion, which failed, with Obie and Bradley voting aye; Haws, Hamel, Williams, Delay, Lieuallen, and Smith voting no. Mr. Delay said he would vote no on the main motion because he believed the City's present position was fairly well understood by Mr. Haws and there was no need to further water that down. In clarification of his motion, Mr. Williams said the intent was to not place Mr. Haws in a position of using Eugene's weighted vote for the first time at an L-COG meeting to force Eugene's unequal representation on the EIC. He wanted Mr. Haws to have the opportunity to negotiate and get the EIC formed. Mr. Delay felt the intent of the motion had changed. He was willing to have Mr. Haws represent the majority of the Council favoring one man, one vote. He noted it would not give Eugene majority control. He did not feel it was making unrealistic demands. . 6/14/78 - 7 ~~5