My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 4 - Ord./Metro Plan Amend.
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-07/26/04Mtg
>
Item 4 - Ord./Metro Plan Amend.
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:09:51 PM
Creation date
7/21/2004 9:07:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
7/26/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
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
MWMC staff essent'iall.y relies on tWo things to support the public process that was used. <br />The first is that required meeting notices were placed in the local newspapers informing <br />the public of the hearings. However, today's Register Guard is an example of the type of <br />notice provided for the public hearings. Under the Calendar Section in the local section <br />of the Register Guard, page D2, residents of Eugene would read: <br /> <br /> Joint Meeting of Eugene City Council, Springfield City Council, Lane County <br /> Board of Commissioners - 6 p.m., Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall, <br /> 225 N. 5th Street. 682-5017. <br /> <br />Residents who checked under Lane County in the Calendar would find: <br /> <br /> Board of Commissioners - 5:30 p.m. joint meeting with Eugene and Springfield <br /> City Councils, Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall, 225 N. 5th Street. <br /> Presentation of ACTSO certificates; work session and public hearing on <br /> amendments to Metropolitan General Plan public facilities element. <br /> <br />Residents who checked under Springfield would receive no notice at all of the public <br />hearing or that their council was meeting. Eugene residents would know there was a <br />meeting but have no notice of its subject or the fact there was a public hearing. Residents <br />who checked to see what the county commissioners had on their schedule would receive <br />the most information, but certainly not information that would alert them to the proposed <br />approval of $160 million of wastewater projects. <br /> <br />Other than tWo limited references to the proposed projects (one in the Springfield Beat <br />.and one in the similar section for Eugene) in the Register Guard, there has not been a <br />stow in either of the local papers discussing the proposed projects. The wastewater <br />projects proposed by MWMC are of a monetary scope that has never been built with <br />lOcal money in the metro area before. A good,sized article in the local papers or other <br />media coverage would be appropriate given the size of the proposed projects. The public <br />can not be expected to provide comments if they don't know there is something to <br />comment about. <br /> <br />MWMC staffhas indicated that MWMC itself has held public meetings and public <br />hearings on the projects. MWMC holds its meetings and hearings at 7:30 A.M. On more <br />than one occasion, the General Manager of MWMC has justified holding the meetings <br />and hearings early in the morning because no one attends MWMC meetings. Again, the <br />public has to know there is a reason to attend before they are going to show up. <br />However, another reason that people do not show up is that the public does not follow the <br />activities of MWMC in the same way that they follow the activities of the planning <br />commissions and the elected officials. A large segment of persons active in the <br />community follows the land use process diligently because it knows that that is where the <br />public discussion of community projects typically begins. <br /> <br /> 1-2 2 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.