My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 1: Metro Subcommittee Report
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 06/01/09 Joint Elected Officials Meeting
>
Item 1: Metro Subcommittee Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:16:07 PM
Creation date
5/29/2009 10:56:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/1/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Councilor Ortiz stated that she didn’t disagree with Councilor Lundberg but that we don’t <br />live in silos—for example, she currently works in Springfield. She would prefer to revise <br />the Metro Plan. MWMC is a good example of working together. She is also an advocate <br />of being inclusive and being sure everyone is heard. It is a balancing act between <br />individual jurisdictions. She noted that this is a long-term conversation—needs to evolve <br />and reflect community issues of today. Money would be better spent on things other than <br />an entirely new Metro Plan. <br />rd <br />Councilor Clark added an example of something that is working well is the 3 Battalion. <br />The economy today leads us towards economies of scale. A huge amount of money and <br />time would be required when we least can afford it. Is there a hybrid model that lets us <br />have as much autonomy as possible? <br />Jamon noted that Salem-Keizer is a possible example but not sure of implications and <br />applicability. <br />Greg said that voluntarily agreements were originally developed in 1970s; all the <br />jurisdictions would have to give up veto power, which is difficult to do. <br />Councilor Lundberg said it is difficult for all three to address the same policy questions <br />when their philosophies are different. <br />Lisa added that could include dispute resolution process as part of revisions; for example, <br />a hearings official could address disputes. <br />Greg noted that MPC used to be more focused on land use; as LCOG Board transferred <br />MPO authority to MPC, it became more transportation-focused. <br />Councilor Ralston stated that no matter what, cities and the county are tied together. <br />There is not much difference between no Metro Plan and a complete rewrite. He believes <br />there are some good pieces in the Metro Plan, though. It is frustrating to have to rely on <br />two other jurisdictions when trying to get something done. He asked if Springfield by <br />itself could go with the no Metro Plan option. Autonomy is premiere. <br />Greg responded that legal input would be needed to answer that question. The Metro Plan <br />is a form of a contract; not sure of the contract obligations. <br />Commissioner Handy asked what Portland Metro learned when they were at this point— <br />dealing with capacity issues, where to grow, etc. <br />Kent noted that Portland Metro is regional. It is another layer of government, with taxing <br />authority, etc. Even the county reports to Metro. <br />Greg described the Region 2050 process and the regional problem solving statute. <br />JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 5 5/7/2009 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.