Laserfiche WebLink
factor greenhouse gas emissions in their transportation and land use plans as part of a pilot study. Ms. Wilson noted <br />that the City of Springfield had several serious reservations regarding the amendments which were expected to move <br />into the bill very soon. <br />Ms. Wilson noted that several Eugene City staff members had reviewed the amendments and offered written <br />responses. <br />Ms. Wilson, responding to a comment from Ms. Piercy, stated she had recently spoken with the chair of the state <br />House Transportation Committee who had indicated to her that the amendments in some form were expected to be <br />adopted into HB 2001. <br />Mr. Clark asked if there had been any discussion about possibly allowing the Eugene-Springfield MPO to drop out of <br />the pilot study specified in the 1000 Friends of Oregon amendment. <br />Ms. Wilson noted that the Salem-Keizer MPO shared concerns similar to those of Eugene and Springfield and was <br />also investigating whether or not those concerns would require them to oppose HB 2001 as a whole. <br />Ms. Wilson stated that staff would need direction from the council regarding the manner in which they would proceed <br />regarding the amendment itself as well as whether or not the City of Eugene would co-sign Springfield’s letter <br />regarding the amendment. <br />Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Piercy, reported she had spoken with John Chandler of the <br />Homebuilders Association who informed her that while they supported the amendments they also shared some of the <br />concerns brought forth by the City of Springfield. <br />Ms. Wilson, responding to a request for further information from Mr. Zelenka, provided a brief overview of the <br />reservations that had been raised by the City of Springfield regarding the proposed amendments to HB 2001. She <br />noted that while Springfield generally agreed with the policy intent of the amendment, they worried that it might <br />represent an unfunded mandate and would circumvent the City’s authority. She further noted that other concerns <br />regarding the amendments, as well as several proposed alternatives, had been detailed in Springfield’s draft letter to <br />the state legislature. <br />Mr. Zelenka maintained that the amendment represented an important and badly needed strategy to reduce <br />greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, but agreed that there were several funding and planning issues that <br />might need to be addressed in ways similar to what Springfield had suggested. <br />Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, commented that the amendment to HB 2001 could divert state <br />operational funds to fund the pilot program. <br />Mr. Clark recognized the goals of the 1000 Friends of Oregon’s amendment but noted that he could not currently <br />endorse the amendment to HB 2001 as written. He further noted he had not yet had a chance to review the draft <br />letter from Springfield. <br />Mr. Poling noted that he would not support the proposed amendments to HB 2001 and noted he would be willing to <br />make a motion in support of the Springfield letter. <br />Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, stated that local gas taxes would not be affected by the <br />proposed amendment. <br />Ms. Ortiz was concerned about funding issues related to the amendment and noted that while she agreed with the <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />