Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Gardner thought they would probably spend the next couple of months figuring out what they knew. She said in September they would revisit it and the work plan would be revised based on the progress made over the summer. She felt that ultimately they would need to answer the 13 questions that were posed at the outset of the process. Ms. Weiss said they were legally required to address items one through five. She related that it was staff's belief that the remaining items would be brought up through the community group process. Mr. Clark recommended that they check in with the Lane County commissioners "early and often." He said he did not want to engage in this process and have it "run off the rails" at its culmination. He favored the idea of building a process that would allow them to check back in after the February timeline goal. He thought they could end up leading the state in a new process that would allow for more intelligent, and less conflict-oriented, planning. He related his concern that the worst outcome would be that they would end up adding tasks that were mandatory that would then "blow" the agreed to timeline. He believed it to be critically important because some of the products of work would be related to the budgetary challenges that lay ahead for the County. He pointed out that the County stood to lose nearly half of its General Fund in the next couple of years. He underscored the need to have a plan in place for how they would help the local economy. Ms. Solomon asked what would happen if the group could not reach consensus on items 6 through 13. Ms. Weiss responded that consensus was listed as a best outcome but was not mandatory. Ms. Solomon asked if the whole process would come to a stop if the group could not reach consensus on an item in order to conduct further review and gain more data. She was concerned that it could end up being extended, and then extended again, because they were "building in more opportunities to slow the process down." She also expressed concern that this process could become like the citizen process that had come into play for Crest Drive. She felt the council had abdicated its authority in that case. She hoped that the council would not give up its responsibility and allow the group to dictate the results. Ms. Gardner replied that this had been expressed up front by Mr. Chadwick. She related that he had let the people know that they were not the decision-makers; the decision-makers were the elected officials. Ms. Solomon asked what would happen if 1,000 Friends of Oregon, as an example, participated in the process and then in the end litigated. She asked if there was a way to prevent that and acknowledged that no one could really stop someone from litigating. Mr. Ruiz responded that involving people in the conversation would hopefully help them not feel the need to litigate. Mr. Brown asked to see a more technical analysis of all that they should know. He acknowledged that the group that met for the workshop had been an elite group, but that the elected officials would make the final decision. Ms. Taylor asked who city staff was speaking to at the state level. Ms. Weiss replied that they were in contact with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). She said Ed Moore was the regional DLCD representative. Ms. Taylor did not know why they should have to bring in "some guru from some other place" to facilitate a meeting when they had people on staff who were probably as qualified to facilitate. She recalled the roads management policy process, which she had participated in, and asked what had happened with it. She thought the policies addressed the concerns that they were dealing with. Ms. Gardner responded that the road management policies were valid and were reflected in the guiding principles. Mr. Clark shared a graph of the Save Rural Schools Act county timber payments. He pointed out that the MINUTES—City Council June 16, 2010 Page 3