Item 3: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

HB 2997 Ms. Bettman supported the bill because it provided for citizen involvement on the front end of a transporta- tion project. She noted that with the exception of Portland, the region was the only one without an Area Committee on Transportation (ACT). She liked ACTs because they provided for citizen involvement on the front end of a project. She had attempted to accomplish same thing through the formation of the Metropoli- tan Planning Organization Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), but since she had left the Metropolitan Policy Committee its charge had been changed. She termed it a miserable waste of effort. Ms. Bettman moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Support. Ms. Wilson noted that there would be a hearing on the bill the following week. She believed that Lane County was at a disadvantage because it lacked an ACT, and they would soon take on a bigger role through the Connect Oregon process in project prioritization. Mayor Piercy asked about differences in representation on ACTs as opposed to the CAC. Ms. Bettman said that currently, the system was very complicated and it had the potential to disenfranchise people because there was no streamlined way of taking input from throughout the whole region and giving the public access to all the information it needed to give input because it was available only in a piecemeal way. She said that ACTs were regional bodies that included elected officials and stakeholders that streamlined the public process. They ensured information was gathered upfront before priorities were identified. Mr. Jones said not all ACTS were the same and representation varied from district to district and the bill was narrowly focused on the composition of an ACT by stipulating its membership. He determined that Ms. Bettman supported an amendment related to representation from citizen stakeholder groups. He noted that currently, ACT members were appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Jones observed that the bill made reference to a member from the private sector and determined Ms. Bettman favored an amendment related to representation from a modal interest group such as a pedestrian, bicycling, or rail group. Mayor Piercy noted citizen input she had received regarding the importance of having an ACT in Lane County. Mr. Pryor did not want to lose sight of the role that Lane Council of Governments played in transportation planning and wanted to ensure there was a tie between an ACT and that agency. Mr. Jones noted that the bill called for councils of government to be members of ACTs. Given no committee member was available to attend the hearing scheduled on the bill the following week, Ms. Bettman suggested that staff draft a letter to the relevant House committee stating the position of the CCIGR. Ms. Wilson concurred. Ms. Bettman restated the motion with the amendment related to stakeholder groups. It was seconded by Mr. Pryor, and the motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mayor Piercy anticipated that the full council might want to discuss the City’s position on the bill. SB 521 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 2