Item 2C: Ratify IGR Comm.Action - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to smart growth concepts. Mr. Pap6 opposed the motion. He determined from Mr. Yeiter that the firms proposed for the audit were located in the Portland area. Mr. Yeiter said Angela Eaton had done some work for the City of Eugene. Mr. Pap6 thought any kind of help would be useful. The result could be adding to the code. He indicated he was likely to raise the issue at the council. Mr. Yeiter indicated a letter of the City's intent to seek the grant must be prepared by June 15. Ms. Bettman thought the $50,000 in question would be better used for identifying opportunities for density. Mr. Yeiter regretted that was not the intent of the grant. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. Ms. Bettman asked that the committee consider the 2005-2007 TGM grant application submitted by the City of Springfield. She acknowledged that the grant had been provided for the committee's information but she believed that the committee should have been asked to take a position on the grant. Ms. Klemp indicated the grant application would go forward with or without Eugene's participation. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to consider the Springfield grant application. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman referred to the Springfield council's Agenda Item Summary for the grant, which indicated the amount of the grant was $150,000, with a twelve percent local match. Eugene was participating in the match with staff time. She interpreted the grant as implementing direction from the Metropolitan Policy Committee, ~which apparently" directed staff to make the TransPlan and Regional Transportation Plan one plan after it had been turned into two plans. She maintained the council should have discussed the issue. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to retroactively deny the application of the City of Springfield grant on the basis of the process, the fact it did not come before the CCIGR, the fact it did not come before the council, and based on the fact that the Metro- politan Policy Committee (MPC) could not dictate changes to TransPlan without council policy direction. Mr. Pap~ asked if the committee's action would mean Springfield would have to provide the match. Mr. Yeiter did not think the City of Springfield had already initiated an amendment to TransPlan, but that was the eventual intent. The grant would allow TransPlan to be updated without any policy content changes in response to new federal requirements that called for the establishment of a regional transportation plan that had broader boundaries than TransPlan. The federal requirements in TransPlan had been supplanted by the new federally mandated document. The plans would either be combined into one plan, or the federally required components would be removed from TransPlan and made into a separate plan. Mr. Pap~ asked if Eugene was submitting the grant application. Mr. Yeiter did not believe so. He believed it was submitted by the City of Springfield. Ms. Bettman believed that the grant application was made on behalf of the three jurisdictions that were party to TransPlan in response to the actions of the MPC, which separated the two plans in December 2004 and MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 26, 2005 Page 3