Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Piercy said the goal of the FACT -LC was to achieve a high level of consensus on issues. <br />In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Wilson said the council would have an opportunity to vote <br />on the ACT proposal before the Board of Commissioners forwarded its recommendation to the OTC. <br />Mr. Clark asked how dispute resolution among jurisdictions would be addressed. Mr. Zako replied that <br />one of the elements required by the legislature was a conflict resolution process the ACT would use to <br />produce equitable outcomes. He said that limited resources were available to implement the ACT and the <br />initial goal was to have a functioning ACT that met the spirit of legislative intent. Establishing operation- <br />al details, including conflict resolution, would be part of the ACT's work plan. He said the ideal for <br />resolving disputes was to make decisions by consensus, but recognized that might not always be possible <br />and the FACT -LC would discuss a resolution process at its next meeting. He said that the Lane County <br />legislative delegation, OTC leadership and neighboring ACTs were being kept informed of the progress <br />with the expectation that the FACT -LC would be informed if its direction was inconsistent with legislative <br />intent. <br />Mr. Clark stressed the importance of an explicit process that allowed for expeditious conflict resolution. <br />Ms. Piercy said FACT -LC members were united in their desire to achieve agreement and avoid disputes. <br />Mr. Zako added that the ACT was an advisory body, unlike the MPC, which was a decision- making body. <br />Ms. Solomon asked for clarification of Highway 126 East membership on the ACT. She also asked why <br />there was no rail representative. Ms. Wilson said the purpose was to provide representation for an <br />unincorporated area that would not have a natural representative, such as a city, on the ACT. She said <br />some members could have rail interests. She said the FACT -LC did not want to limit membership to <br />specific targets or issue areas for ex officio members because interests and issues could shift over time and <br />the ACT's membership should have the flexibility to reflect current conditions. Mr. Zako said the <br />legislature also wanted ACT membership to be primarily elected officials who represented peoples the six <br />citizen members were intended to be drawn from different modes and other interests affected by the <br />transportation system. The ACT would decide from among applicants for those positions who would best <br />fill those gaps. <br />Mr. Brown asked why the ACT would be an improvement over the current process if it was only an <br />advisory body. Mr. Zako said the intent was to establish a process that was more inclusive, particularly of <br />small cities and transportation interest groups. It would not fundamentally change the current process, but <br />rather make it broader. Ms. Wilson said the County competed with other ACTs in the State for funding <br />and an ACT would make Lane County more competitive by reflecting a broad range of interests that <br />determined regional priorities. <br />In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Mr. Zako said the ACT planning process was being funded by <br />the County and ACT operations would be funded by ODOT. <br />Ms. Taylor felt that there should be a rail representative on the ACT. She asked who would appoint the <br />citizen members. Ms. Wilson said appointment authority had not yet been determined, although the <br />proposal was likely to be for the ACT to select citizen members. <br />Ms. Taylor expressed concern with leaving appointment of citizen members to the ACT. She saw one <br />representative from each jurisdiction as a major flaw in the ACT structure. <br />MINUTES Eugene City Council April 12, 2010 Page S <br />Work Session <br />