Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Clark understood that the cost of the project was already greater than LCC had anticipated and stressed that postponing it would only drive the costs up. He was concerned that postponement would kill the project. Councilor Taylor asserted that they were ignoring the "fact" that they could do something for LCC; they could fund the LCC proposal with "current funds." Mayor Piercy observed that there was a difference of opinion on the council. She underscored that the amendment had been thoroughly debated and talked about in the community. She felt they had undertaken a thoroughly democratic process. She believed that the opportunities presented by the urban renewal amendment outweighed the issues: construction would bring jobs, the project would bring students downtown, and there were many benefits. Roll call vote; the amendment failed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Brown voting in support. Councilor Zelenka favored enactment of the plan. He thought they could do it without raising taxes or negatively impacting schools. He declared it to be the cheapest option in front of the council and that it would add much needed jobs to the downtown area. He could not agree that a different financing mechanism would bring about a vibrant downtown. Councilor Taylor reiterated her opposition and her belief that they could do the work without the mechanism. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Brown voting in opposition. 4. ACTION: Adoption of Revised Lane Area Commission on Transportation Bylaws Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, recalled that the council had acted on proposed bylaws on April 26. She explained that since then, four minor concerns had arisen regarding the bylaws, explained in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), primarily clarifying changes. Councilor Brown was bothered by the last of the four provisions, which directed that the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) needed to approve, or at least see, any major changes in the bylaws. He pointed out that the Police Commission could amend its bylaws without council approval and questioned why the OTC would have that kind of oversight. Ms. Wilson explained that the formation of Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs) was governed by the OTC's policy on the formation and operation of ACTs. She said the OTC was concerned that bylaws adopted by ACTs might not follow the OTC's guidelines. Mayor Piercy observed that the ACT was an entity of the OTC and that the legislature had required Lane County to form an ACT. In response to a question from Councilor Poling, Ms. Wilson stated that there was a possibility that there could be multiple-representation on the Lane ACT because of the membership. She explained that there was a representative from the Metropolitan Policy Organization (MPO) and from the Cities of Eugene and Springfield, but the intent of any ACT was that they should represent the entities from which they were appointed. She said while there could be some overlap, there would not be overlap specifically on a representative of the Highway 26 East area. She further explained that the bylaws specified that the six citizen members should not all represent one particular interest group. Councilor Zelenka ascertained from Ms. Wilson that the OTC had to approve the original bylaws. She stated that all of the bylaws and amendments to bylaws for all of the ACTS had been approved by the OTC. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2010 Page 11 Regular Meeting