Item 3: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman opined that the situation had been such that the Board of County Commissioners, the MPC, and the former Mayor of Eugene had a “stranglehold on all those transportation decisions.” She reiterated her feeling that the transportation decisions that had been made contributed to Eugene’s backlog of street maintenance and preservation projects. Ms. Bettman recalled that the CCIGR had a unanimous decision on the ACT bill. Ms. Wilson noted that Mayor Piercy had sat in for Ms. Taylor. Ms. Wilson observed that, especially with the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) bill, some bills were in committees with no representation from the Eugene area. She said it did not behoove the City to fight with its partners in Salem because the committees were not likely to care. She recommended resolving differences before going to Salem. In regard to this specific situation, she suggested drafting a letter to Rep. Holvey. She anticipated receiving a copy of a letter to Rep. Holvey from Lane County that was being drafted by the County’s intergovernmental relations manager for Commissioner Green to sign. She had been assured that she would be provided a copy. She thought the City should draft a letter in regard to its position, why the City had taken that position, and how the City saw the formation of the ACT. Ms. Taylor averred that at least one commissioner was in favor of the ACT. Ms. Bettman alleged that one of the issues that had elevated the idea of an ACT had to do with large groups of people coming before the MPC complaining about decisions that had been made. She further alleged that people were not able to give input in the prioritization of projects. She believed that big controversies had developed after decisions had been made because the public did not have an ability to influence the outcome as the decision-making process was “dominated by the MPC which was not a representative body.” She opined that the MPC was not a balanced body in terms of equitability between the jurisdictions. She said when people say Eugene is “not playing well in the sandbox” the representatives of Eugene should counter by averring that the City of Eugene did not have proportional representation on that body. She suggested that this be included in the letter to Rep. Holvey. Mr. Jones asked if it would be satisfactory to point to a solution that was not legislative. He suggested allowing local jurisdictions to come to their own definition of an ACT. He noted that this was how the ACTs had come together throughout Oregon, in that it had not been mandated by law but rather each area had used whatever mix of people and process within certain constraints that ODOT sets to form an ACT. Ms. Bettman asked if Mr. Jones was suggesting that the CCIGR support Rep. Holvey’s withdrawal of the bill permanently. Ms. Wilson offered to speak with Lane County about this idea. Mayor Piercy observed that the City had not introduced this piece of legislation; it had been proposed by a legislator and not on behalf of the City of Eugene. She doubted the bill would go anywhere. She thought that on one hand the CCIGR could decide it was important enough to weigh in on, but she felt that what was being proposed was to express Eugene’s interest in a discussion with its community partners about the possibility of an ACT in the future. Ms. Wilson related that Rep. Holvey seemed uncertain whether he could bring the bill forward, but he was not yet willing to give it up. She asked Ms. Bettman if she would be willing to meet with Rep. Holvey. She noted that he had already met with Commissioner Green. Ms. Bettman indicated that she wanted to meet with Rep. Holvey. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 3