Item 3D: Ratification of IGR Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman asked why there was no reference to the 2008 Olympic Trials. Ms. Wilson responded that staff had chosen to keep the event out of the book because there was a lot of confusion about it. She said she had a meeting set up with the University of Oregon and other local government entities to discuss who would be doing what, because it seemed at this point that no one was coordinating. Ms. Bettman opined that it was a lost opportunity. She felt it would be the “perfect thing to lobby for” at the United Front. She averred that the area needed more money for additional public safety services and security for the event. She said it would benefit all three jurisdictions and all three of them would be involved. Ms. Wilson did not believe they were missing an opportunity to discuss the Olympic Trials. She had done some research about it and believed that there was potential that asking about it would bring the area “a lot more than it bargained for.” She said it appeared that the federal government would come in and take over the planning and execution of the security. She indicated that staff was doing more research on it. She related that she had spoken to Smith Dawson about it and he had offered to “set something up” while the delegation was in Washington, D.C., as long as the City knew exactly what it was asking for. Mr. Pryor advocated for moving Secure Rural Schools up on the list. He underscored that it was not just the County’s issue. He also wished to indicate that he was “fine with the content” of the EPD bills. Mr. Pryor left the meeting at 1:32 p.m. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson said it was her understanding that the United Front group had agreed that the projects they were bringing forward were not competing interests and that now was a good time to ask for the appropriations out of the Transportation, Community, and System Preserva- tion (TCSP) fund especially given that the region had “some good committee placements” at this time. Ms. Bettman asked if staff thought the McKenzie River Path was not competing with the West Bank Trail. Ms. Wilson replied that the group had engaged in much discussion over that. She underscored that the way the projects were being presented, the West Bank Trail stood out as the one gap that needed to be finished to complete a trail section while the McKenzie River Path was the beginning of a new project. The group had concluded the latter would not compete for the money. Ms. Bettman disagreed. She commented that the decision was supposed to be united but it seemed that it had been unilateral. She also wondered how the Pioneer Parkway EmX project had increased from an $8 million project to a $29.6 million project. She asked if she was the only one who wondered at the increase. She asked if anyone knew “who had changed the number and why.” Ms. Wilson responded that she had not seen the fact sheet for the projects submitted for the book. Ms. Bettman asked what the committee should do with its input. It seemed to her that the CCIGR “just [gave its] input and it does not matter” because the decisions had already been made. She asked who made the decisions. Ms. Wilson replied that the United Front group made the decisions in regard to the project list. Ms. Bettman observed that the group was “all staff.” She asked if the CCIGR would have an opportunity to put a memorandum in the council packet in order to get council feedback on the process. She suggested that she could bring it up at the next council meeting, scheduled for February 12. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 12 Relations