Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mayor Lundberg said the hope was that the proposed MOU took advantage of the efforts now in place. While she acknowledged concerns about additional bureaucracy, she echoed Mayor Piercy’s remarks about the intent of the consortium. She wanted the consortium to put the region in a better position to compete for project dollars. Mayor Lundberg envisioned those projects would include projects already in existing planning documents as well as new projects with a regional benefit. She recalled the Region 2050 process, which had “taken on a life of its own” and had been halted because of concerns the decision making process was working against community autonomy. She wanted the MOU to recognize community autonomy while helping the region move forward with projects of regional interest. She was also concerned about how the new dollars were shared. Mr. Zelenka felt that $1.4 million over three years was modest, which caused him to puzzle over the discussion. He asked if Mr. Poling wanted to see every grant the City applied for or if he was concerned about this particular grant. Mr. Zelenka also recalled that the council was notified when the community received the award and he had attended the kick-off at which HUD Assistant Secretary Shelley Poticha had announced the grant. He suggested the grant was about doing things “smarter, better, and cheaper.” The grant spoke to many subjects and attempted to integrate them to a greater degree. He agreed with Mayor Lundberg’s remarks about the importance of recognizing community autonomy. Mr. Bozievich found it ironic that the grant arose from a program focused on the removal of regulatory policy barriers, but the participating jurisdictions were being asked to sign a 23-page MOU that referenced an 18-page contract with HUD, and buried inside that contract were references to 600 pages of federal regulations. He questioned how that reduced barriers. He noted the HUD contract prohibited the use of planning efforts to recruit businesses to the community if that might be to the detriment of another community. He asked what other policy decisions were included in those 600 pages of regulations. Mr. Bozievich believed that the elected officials should understand any contract they signed, and he had yet to receive a clear explanation of the policy decisions he was making by signing the contract. He called for clarity about what the community was agreeing to. Speaking to Mr. Zelenka’s assertion that $1.4 million was a “modest” amount of money, Mr. Bozievich pointed out that amount would fund the four FTE Lane County was cutting from the District Attorney’s Office budget over the next three years. He felt $1.4 million was a lot of money. Mr. Bozievich said he was more concerned about the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act than he was about the grant. He pointed out the County was being asked for offsets to the Secure Rural Schools money, and said he would gladly give up the grant to secure those unrestricted funds. He challenged the other elected officials to say the intended use was how they would spend the money if it was not restricted. It was not how he would spend the money. Mr. Pryor suggested there were two issues, the grant itself and the consistency of the information being provided to members of the partnership. He said such significant grants required more consistent information sharing. He interpreted Mr. Poling’s remarks not as opposition to the grant but as discomfort that he lacked information. He appreciated Ms. Wylie’s remarks about TEAM Springfield, saying that approach was built on the notion of equal information for equal partners at all times. He believed the partnership in question would work if based on that model. Mr. Farr also shared Mr. Poling’s concern that Eugene might be viewed as a source of funding for other jurisdictions. He did not think that was the case, however, and was excited about the possibilities the grant funding presented. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials-- May 26, 2011 Page 5 Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield