Item 2A - Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

considered for funding. She wanted to create a process where the council had a say in where the priorities were placed. That was consistent with the practice of other jurisdictions. The MPO coordinated its activities based on the priorities of the jurisdictions, and she wanted to be able to provide input on the priorities in a timely way. Mr. Meisner advocated for the visual display of motions offered to the body. He indicated support for the motion. Mr. Kelly also supported the motion. He agreed with the comments made by Ms. Bettman. He thought the motion improved the process. Ms. Taylor also supported the motion. She thought the council could make time for the needed review. Mr. Pap~ questioned the inclusion of the reference to projects in which Eugene was a stakeholder as it seemed very broad to him. He suggested that Eugene was a stakeholder in everything that occurred in the community. Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Corey that the Springfield council reviewed the project list but under its operating agreements, it did not take action on the list. Ms. Nathanson asked what criteria made the City a stakeholder in a project. She asked if the intent of the motion was that the City Council would review and approve the project list. Ms. Bettman said yes. Ms. Solomon thanked Mr. Corey for the presentation. She asked if the review meant those projects were %et in stone," and how it affected the council's ability to reallocate funding %n the fly." Ms. Solomon said while she was inclined to support the motion, it had a certain element of micromanaging and seemed to duplicate what the MPC already did, adding more complexity to a process the council wanted to make more simple. Mayor Torrey was also was concerned about overreaching. He did not want to take away the City's MPC representatives' ability to negotiate and engage in give-and-take at MPC meetings. He supported the original intent of the motion as he had viewed it earlier in the week, but was concerned by the added language. He did not want MPC representatives to be bound by a list. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend the time for the item by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly thought the council's concerns were addressed by the motion. He said the review would be limited to Eugene projects. That review would inform the MPC representatives of the council's position. Mr. Kelly said the MPC representatives might not to choose to follow the direction of the council. In regard to the added phrase, he emphasized the council would only be doing a review. In light of the limited dollars for transportation funding, it made sense for the Eugene council to have an opportunity to point out imbalances in regional funding or to identify projects outside the city limits that might negatively impact Eugene. Regarding Ms. Solomon's concerns about the council's ability to change things %n the fly," he said that because the council had the need to make such changes, he found value in the motion. It did not prevent change, but merely meant the list would merely return to the council for more discussion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 4 Work Session