M I N U T E S
APPROVED by Board of Commissioners
City Council/Springfield City Council/Lane Board of County Commissioners
Room—Eugene City Hall
CITY COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman,
George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka.
CITY COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Woodrow,
Christine Lundberg, Hillary Wylie, Anne Ballew, Joe Pishioneri.
Councilor Dave Ralston was excused.
PRESENT: Faye Stewart, Bobby Green,
Peter Sorenson. Commissioners Bill
Fleenor and Bill Dwyer were excused.
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING: Discussion
of Inter-Jurisdictional Priorities
Honor Mayor Sid Leiken opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council.
Stewart opened the meeting of the Lane Board of County Commissioners.
Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council and
welcomed the members of the Springfield City Council and the Lane Board of
Stewart thanked the City of Eugene for hosting the meeting and thanked everyone
and Discussion of Issues List
Stewart stated that each governmental body had concerns.
He referred to the three-page Joint Elected Officials Meeting:
Issues List dated February 12, 2008.
He hoped to discuss the issues list and then approaches on how to address
those items on the list. He wanted
to establish some priorities and the next steps to take.
He asked Mayor Piercy to begin the discussion.
Piercy reviewed the list of issues that the Eugene City Council submitted, as
Homelessness, something the City
Council believed should be “on the top of our minds” as it was a big issue
for the entire community and the broader region;
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
General Area Plan (Metro Plan) – House Bill (HB) 3337 created separate urban
growth boundaries (UGBs) for Springfield and Eugene and requires Metro Plan
Public safety, the jurisdictions need
to work together to provide the best services possible;
Enhance understanding of race issues
and improve race relations;
Transportation planning and funding –
the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) has adopted the Regional Transportation
Plan that called for the TransPlan to be consistent with it;
The Eugene council desired a discussion
on Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs) and the transportation funding
needed for preservation and maintenance.
Leiken stated the following:
The Springfield City Council was in
agreement that the TransPlan work plan issue was important as were the Metro
Plan UGB changes that had arisen from HB 3337.
Springfield wanted to bring forward the
need for an update of the population projections.
Mayor Leiken averred that Eugene and Springfield needed to have separate
projections. He said Springfield
prepared its final draft of the residential lands study and was initiating a
study of industrial lands. He
wanted to ensure that, with that information, the projections would show where
the two cities needed to go.
Stewart presented three items from the Lane Board of County Commissioners:
The commissioners had concerns related
to the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 190 agreements of urban transition between
the city limits and UGBs and that sometimes citizens in that area did not feel
they had representation;
Financial/revenue concerns – property
tax revenue was substantially reduced by ballot measures 5, 47, and 50 and the
County was experiencing difficulty in meeting the demands of its citizens for
services. One of the problems lay
in the Metro Plan and what it required to create a special district;
The commissioners also had concerns
regarding how resource areas, farm ground and forest ground, could be protected
as growth was allowed to occur.
Stewart remarked that none of the elected officials around the table were
present when some of the agreements and working documents had been established,
such as the Metro Plan. He shared
the frustration other elected officials felt as to how those agreements applied
and as to whether they were working in the present. He agreed that it might be time to look into them and see if
they could be improved to help serve the citizens better.
Stewart encouraged the elected officials who were present to make comments that
were constructive and positive.
– Preferred Approach(es) to Address Issues and Establishment of Priorities
Stewart asked to go around the table in order to garner input on preferred
approaches to addressing the issues. He
noted that the Joint Elected Officials would likely have to meet again since it
would not be possible to tackle all of the issues in one sitting.
Piercy suggested forming cross-jurisdictional groups to meet given the magnitude
of the issues.
Councilor Bettman believed the issues were shared but the strategies of the
jurisdictions were different. She
pointed out that all of the jurisdictions wanted to improve public safety but
she believed the County wished to establish a special district to do so.
She recalled that the Eugene City Council had not supported the
establishment of such a district in the past.
She acknowledged that the Metro Plan amendments would have to be dealt
with given the passage of HB 3337. She
thought the cities of Eugene and Springfield could come up with separate drafts
for the amendments and then reconcile the two.
Sorenson supported working collaboratively on mutual issues.
He declared that to say that Lane County was in a difficult position was
an understatement. He stated that
the community at large would be significantly affected if the budget currently
under consideration came to pass as of July 1, 2008.
He listed some of the cuts, which include a reduction in the number of
Lane County Jail beds to 12, elimination of the Lane County Public Health
Department, and virtually eliminating the Department of Youth Services.
He underscored that this was not a budget that one commissioner
championed, but rather was a joint decision of the whole Board, made under dire
circumstances. He reiterated that
to say the community was facing a significant impact of the proposed budget was
a “complete understatement.” He
felt that the elected officials would look back on the current meeting and ask
themselves what they did in anticipation of July 1, 2008.
He wanted to get the conversation on to the “harsh reality.”
He said the County needed the help of the city jurisdictions to
ameliorate the impacts of the coming budget on their respective constituents.
Councilor Lundberg agreed there were some issues that overlapped more than
others, and cited the need for Metro Plan amendments as one of them.
She thought it would need immediate attention because it would take a
Lundberg agreed with Commissioner Sorenson that the County was faced with the
most challenging scenario of the three jurisdictions. She said special districts could be a remedy.
She was uncertain what they would be or how they would look at this
point. She indicated she would
prioritize special districts and TransPlan and Metro Plan changes as they were
things that could be worked on jointly.
Councilor Ortiz said her challenge lay in that she did not want to discuss
special districts without going to the voters.
She underscored that this was not because she did not believe it to be a
good idea. She expressed
appreciation for the joint meeting and agreed that the jurisdictions should meet
Ortiz agreed that the Metro Plan issues needed to be addressed and that there
were issues of public safety that should be discussed.
Ortiz also wanted the communities to work on being more inclusive.
She said the jurisdictions should encourage communities of color to be
Green said when the urban transition agreement was developed 20-plus years ago
it had been a useful tool to help guide cooperation and partnerships throughout
the region. He thought it merited
revisiting but he did not believe this could happen without revising the Metro
Plan agreements, especially in regard to the provision of services.
He pointed out that the County was the designated provider of services to
residents who live outside the city limits.
He stated that the question was how to fund the services, adding that if
the services were not provided through a special district then what should be
the medium for service provision?
Green felt there was a need for a body that was dedicated to coming up with
resolutions. He opined that there
were “enough bodies coming up with conflicts.”
He asked how they could “get to yes.”
He noted that the MPC had once been seen as the body.
He wanted to create an independent body consisting of citizens and
elected officials that would work toward agreements.
City Councilor Poling likened narrowing the list of priorities to trying to
choose which child was the “favorite child.”
He said public safety was important to him. He believed the whole public safety system was on the verge
of “absolute failure.”
Poling thanked the commissioners for bringing up the ORS 190 issues.
He believed that some of the Metro Plan amendments were
“housekeeping” and could be easily addressed, and then the more complex
issues should be tackled. He added
that he had no objections to making the Joint Elected Officials a regular
Councilor Solomon appreciated the effort made to bring the three jurisdictions
together. She believed it was a
legitimate use of time. She liked
the “problem-solving tenor” that had been established.
Councilor Zelenka said the jurisdictions needed to focus on transportation
planning, the Metro Plan, and public safety.
He remarked that the big issue related to public safety was how to pay
for it and where the resources should come from.
He added that the jurisdictions should also address triage and how they
Councilor Ballew noted that the jurisdictions were against the clock with regard
to the changes required by HB 3337. She
said they also needed to be in agreement on the TransPlan and the Regional
Transportation Plan. Additionally,
she agreed that the three jurisdictions needed to address the County’s
financial situation. It seemed to
her that public safety or public health would be a “good place to start.”
Councilor Taylor averred that they needed fewer organizations and not more.
She felt that the things the jurisdictions needed to discuss together
were the things they could not solve themselves, such as homelessness.
She said they needed to think about what the three jurisdictions could
lobby together for. She felt that
if there were a lot of services for homeless people in one place, the homeless
people would go there.
transportation funding, Councilor Taylor averred that the “day-to-day stuff”
people really cared about were potholes. She
felt that there were things the City could not do by itself but could be done on
a county level. She supported
holding a discussion on whether to form an ACT.
Councilor Pishioneri wanted the group to create a strategy for addressing the
issues. He said they needed to
prioritize the issues and if it came to potholes versus public safety, the
latter seemed more important. He
wanted to look at all of the issues raised by the jurisdictions and to determine
what they had to do and what was not required to be done.
Councilor Clark agreed with Commissioner Green and Councilor Ortiz that the
Joint Elected Officials should have quarterly discussions.
He believed that all of the issues affected more than one jurisdiction.
His priorities included public safety and updates to the Metro Plan.
He thought the Metro Plan was outdated and needed to be revised.
He saw the serious financial shortfalls the County was facing as a
challenge to all three jurisdictions. He
supported approaching priority setting from a regional perspective.
Clark stated, as the representative for the Santa Clara area, that he was
concerned that the jurisdictions did not have a group of citizens who were
county residents and were not provided services because of the changes at the
state level brought about by Senate Bill (SB) 417.
He wanted to ensure that before such a law was enacted there were
agreements between the City and the County that provided citizens with recourse
should provision of services become an issue.
Councilor Wylie noted that the Metro Plan had been mentioned on all three of the
lists of issues and, as such, she thought it was a good place to start.
She was interested in working on the TransPlan and transportation issues.
Wylie stated that the public safety and public health issues would affect
everyone. She averred that they
needed to be thinking clearly about how those issues would affect each
jurisdiction. She noted that she
served on the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Financing Homelessness and
Housing Programs and that she intended to keep working on social issues.
Councilor Woodrow thanked everyone for meeting together.
He agreed with Commissioner Green that there should be an
inter-jurisdictional committee or commission that “gets to yes.”
He averred that by working together the jurisdictions could resolve some
of the issues they faced. He
suggested that staff from Eugene and Springfield could work together on the
housekeeping portions of the Metro Plan amendments and prepare a recommendation.
Woodrow said public safety and ORS 190 were most important to the jurisdictions.
He felt an inter-jurisdictional committee could work on those issues.
He added that he would be happy to collaborate on such a committee.
Councilor Pryor felt there were common issues that could be perceived as the
“low hanging fruit.” In
reviewing the lists he noted that the Metro Plan amendments, public safety,
transportation issues, and the provision of urban services had risen to the top.
He also agreed that the three jurisdictions should meet more often,
perhaps quarterly. He suggested
that by meeting more frequently they could handle the issues in steps.
He agreed that it could be prudent to create subcommittees or task forces
to work inter-jurisdictionally on the individual issues and then have the
subgroups report back to the larger group.
Leiken called the meeting a good start. He
saw common themes in the discussion. He
called the Metro Plan the “800 pound gorilla in the room.”
He believed that if they dealt with the Metro Plan issues they could
address the ORS 190 agreements because they were in conjunction.
He said even the public safety issues fell under the Metro Plan.
He also supported addressing the issue of homelessness.
He felt the Project Homeless Connect should be more than a one-day event.
Stewart opened the table for another round of comments.
Bettman said, in terms of creating a new body that would take on conflict
resolution, this had been the charge of the MPC. She asked if the bodies would want to discuss reforming the
MPC so that it was more representative and had a democratic voting process.
She preferred meeting regularly as the Joint Elected Officials.
Bettman stated that the Metro Plan changes she spoke of were strictly with
regard to HB 3337. She was not
talking about changing who would be the provider of urban services or special
districts or other ways the Metro Plan could be amended in order to facilitate
some of the other issues. Regarding
urban transition, she wondered why the County would want to take on the
corresponding planning and permitting for it.
Bettman commented, in terms of an ACT, that if they started with a
“functioning process” for prioritizing transportation projects that had been
vetted through the elected bodies and the communities and had multiple
stakeholders working through a democratic process, the other transportation
issues would “resolve themselves.”
Clark requested that any subcommittees or work groups formed provide their
results to the Joint Elected Officials and not just individual jurisdictions.
Sorenson remarked that he would prefer that the group give some direction and
say that the MPC process should be reformed.
He reiterated that the number of jail beds would be reduced to 12 under
the proposed budget and pointed out that currently the Lane County Jail housed
eight people suspected of murder. He
questioned why a process would be set up to meet quarterly if they were not
meeting about “front burner issues.”
Zelenka did not want to create more bureaucracy. He averred that they should fix what they had instead of
creating something new.
Zelenka thought the largest problem with the TransPlan issue was that it needed
a functional prioritization scheme for the community about what the
transportation needs were and where the funding should go.
He hoped they would end up creating some committees made up of equal
representation from the three different bodies on transportation, on planning,
on public safety, and potentially on homelessness issues.
He thought the committees could create work products for the review of
the whole body. He echoed Councilor
Taylor in that these were the issues that the individual jurisdictions could not
Ortiz acknowledged that there was a looming crisis.
She did not want to walk away from the meeting without having a mechanism
in place to address some of the issues. She said while fixing the roads and amending the Metro Plan
were important, if they were not keeping the community safe and were not
addressing issues with Emergency Medical Services and the youth issues then they
were not tackling real needs.
Piercy said she would like to know how the City should look at the situation the
other jurisdictions were in and to identify the challenges and determine how to
get together to work on them. She
also thought they needed to find ways to address these issues legislatively.
Woodrow remarked that part of the problem with understanding Lane County’s
situation was that the cities did not have the same information that the County
had. He envisioned the process that
Commissioner Green suggested as providing the public complete access to this
Woodrow said the people who work on the MPC did not work on public safety.
He agreed that the Joint Elected Officials should meet quarterly and also
supported statements made that suggested that any subcommittees of this meeting
should report to the quarterly meeting and not individual jurisdictions.
Pryor did not want to create something that duplicated what already existed.
He felt that if the MPC was working it should be kept as it was.
He also supported quarterly meetings of the Joint Elected Officials.
the formation of subcommittees, Councilor Pryor said the groups should have
defined purposes and mandates and when the work was completed, the groups should
Bettman did not think “spawning” subcommittees would answer the questions.
Green related an example of a jurisdictional partnership that had been formed to
collaboratively address a service provision issue. He stated that the City of Charlotte, North Carolina and
Mecklenburg County had gotten together over 20 years ago because the county had
arrived at the conclusion that it could no longer afford to provide the full
services of the county. He said the
county approached the City of Charlotte and the city had decided to do the
patrolling and to handle the jail, as the city population was larger than that
of the county. He doubted if this
type of collaboration would work in this area but he set it forth as an example
of people getting together to achieve a solution.
He said if this was a challenge that some people were not willing to step
up to, then the problems would still be here.
response to concerns expressed about the creation of another layer of
bureaucracy, Commissioner Green pointed out that an ACT was just such a layer
and was not required by the State. He
noted that Lane County was not the only jurisdiction that did not have an ACT.
He averred that they needed to determine what worked best for the area.
He suggested that someone demonstrate the benefits of forming an ACT.
He had talked to several other commissions on transportation around the
state and believed there were plusses and minuses to such an endeavor.
Lundberg cited Team Springfield, which was a joint venture by public agencies to
fund bicycle patrols, as another example of cooperation for a common goal.
She said as those who made all of the ordinances, the elected officials
had the responsibility to come up with solutions to local issues.
Aside from the transportation issues that needed to be dealt with right
away, she was looking at public safety as it was a “huge issue and a huge
budget issue.” She averred that
the Human Services Commission (HSC) and the Housing Policy Board (HPB) could
potentially focus on a set of tasks with regard to homelessness.
She observed that the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) was a
huge group that was sometimes cumbersome. She
suggested they pull out the elected officials from that group to focus on public
safety. She thought the same
approach could be taken to the MPC and a focus subgroup could be formed.
She added her willingness to meet quarterly.
Clark recalled that he had brought the County’s “cut list” to the Eugene
Budget Committee the previous year. He
felt there was not a crisis of will; it was a crisis of certainty.
He declared that the jurisdictions of Eugene and Springfield, and Lane
County, had “some of the finest staff in the country.”
He had no doubt they would come up with potential solutions if the
jurisdictions would commit to working together.
He thought the subcommittees should determine what service levels were
expected and then ask staff to explore what it would take to get to those
Sorenson reiterated the direness of the county budget situation.
He suggested having the two mayors meet with Commissioner Stewart and
return before the Joint Elected Officials with what they should be considering.
He questioned the necessity of starting another whole process when the
HSC, HPB, PSCC and other groups already existed to work on these problems.
Ballew stressed that they did not have limitless time nor did they have
limitless staff. She underscored
the need to work on what they could do, e.g. the work resulting from the passage
of HB 3337. She acknowledged that
the County’s financial crisis would affect everyone. She suggested that they ask staff to return with the impacts
of the crisis on their jurisdictions.
Wylie thought they could work on some of the issues.
She commented that if there was another school shooting, or someone shot
on the street in Eugene, or rabid dogs attacking children, citizens would come
to their elected officials asking what they had done to plan for this day.
She said the County’s crisis was coming.
Piercy surmised that they needed an emergency plan in order to get through a
potentially difficult time.
Stewart stated that despite what would happen with the County’s financial
problems, there would still be some services taking place.
He said they had a plan and were trying to deal with the coming
situation. He related that the
County Commissioners had tried to create a funding solution to solve the problem
but the citizens had not supported its actions.
He thought the County could still see some relief before July 1 but it
did not mean they would not plan for it. He
believed that they could do multiple things including land use planning in spite
of the potential shortfall.
Stewart summarized what had been said thus far:
There was support for looking at the
Metro Plan, with general support for looking at the immediate problems facing
the Metro Plan and the people who were affected, as a result of HB 3337.
There was interest in reviewing the
Metro Plan to look at the general housekeeping issues and the urban transitional
agreements and special districts.
There was a strong interest in public
safety and concerns expressed about financing fire and police services and how
to keep funding for them going.
There was strong interest in the
TransPlan, potential interest in an ACT, and how to fund road repairs.
Some interest was expressed in forming
a resolution body between the three jurisdictions.
Some interest was also expressed in
pursuing solutions to homelessness.
Stewart observed that there was strong interest in meeting on a quarterly basis.
Bettman wanted to take the topics that had been raised back to the individual
bodies in order to make the decisions there.
She explained that the Eugene City Council could review the Metro Plan
and determine where it should be fixed. She
felt that using the “opportunity” of HB 3337 to address a “whole Christmas
wish list” of other items was not efficient.
She averred that those were policy decisions that must be made by the
Piercy noted that the majority of the Eugene City Council had voted to do only
the “minimum planning.”
Pishioneri said he preferred having the hired experts look at the problems and
offer up multiple options for the elected officials to consider based on
“their educated points of view.” He
underscored that they were paid to be a resource and should serve as such.
Green said he had observed each body’s process. He asked how the Joint Elected Officials would “get to
yes” after the individual elected bodies had met and considered the issues.
He asked what mechanism would drive the three jurisdictions to move
forward; what voting procedure would it use?
He averred that it would be helpful at some point in time if the three
groups could have a discussion on developing a mechanism that they could agree
upon to “get to yes.” He stressed that the three jurisdictions still had to figure
out how to agree regardless of which issues they decided to take on.
Pishioneri concurred. He supported
working with their counterparts to reach the same options to move forward with.
He thought they could make progress on some issues in this way.
Ortiz asked for input from the two respective city managers and the county
City Manager pro tem Angel Jones commented that the jurisdictions were all
“part of the same puzzle.” She
said part of the joint meeting was intended to determine how to move forward
while recognizing that the three jurisdictions did not always agree.
She felt the starting point should be where there was agreement and then
to move into strategizing on how to find agreement on the points on which they
did not agree. She remarked that
from a staff perspective, those issues were discussed all of the time and it
seemed the jurisdictions were not that far apart when looking at the “big
picture.” She agreed that staff
should take a look at the top priorities and then come up with some options
because it was their job to do so. She
underscored that they needed to do it collectively because they did not have
unlimited resources, they were speaking of the same pool in terms of the
community at large, and they were dealing with the same issues and having the
County Administrator Jeff Spartz noted that he had served in this capacity for
six weeks. He averred that from
what he had seen in the interactions of the Joint Elected Officials, they should
“grab hold of a couple of the issues” and work with them.
Regarding public safety, he remarked that it was “amazing” how common
the threads were from one jurisdiction to another in the country.
He believed that what would solve the problems would be to identify the
larger ones and then worry about the nuances later.
He suggested that if one method did not work they should move on to
City Manager Gino Grimaldi felt that the TransPlan was a common issue.
He suggested that they should first take a look at the scope and start
working through a work plan. He saw
the MPC as the perfect vehicle to do so. He
observed that the County had “a lot of energy around” the ORS 190
agreements. He thought the best
place to start there was to get a proposal from the County and this discussion
could take place at the MPC or a subcommittee of that body.
Regarding HB 3337, he recounted that the suggestion had been made to look
at the conforming language and see what issues arose from that.
He suggested that one or both jurisdictions come up with the conforming
language and then see where the differences lay and work from there.
Commissioner Green’s suggestion to form a separate body to “get to yes,”
Mr. Grimaldi thought they could either look at a separate body or look at
modifying the functions of the MPC. He
observed that special districts were an issue between the jurisdictions.
He suggested that they work on resolution, but if no resolution could be
achieved, then the jurisdictions needed to acknowledge this and move on.
Zelenka concurred. He thought there
should be four committees for the different areas of concern, with the MPC
potentially serving as the entity to focus on transportation issues.
He supported having staff scope out the issues and narrow and define them
in order to find the areas of agreement. He
suggested having the information that resulted from these activities brought
back to the Joint Elected Officials as he felt it was the group that should
“get to yes.”
Leiken called the meeting a good start. He
reminded everyone that the public was watching. He believed the jurisdictions needed “a couple of
successes” or they would lose their credibility.
Regarding the public safety bond, he recalled that the three
jurisdictions had worked together and the bond had nearly passed.
He averred that if all of the jurisdictions focused on one big issue a
lot of good work would come of it.
Bettman agreed that they should focus on “small, doable, and mandated
activities” first. She did not
agree that the decisions should be made by the larger body unless they had been
vetted through the individual jurisdictions.
She opined that it could be “to their advantage” to have a “metro
police force.” She averred that
this was a policy issue that needed to be vetted in each jurisdiction.
She felt it would not be possible because the three public safety
agencies were run in different ways.
Green complimented Mr. Spartz. He
agreed that they should “grab a couple of issues” and work on them.
He clarified for Councilor Bettman that he had not brought up an idea of
metro policing as an avenue for the three jurisdictions to pursue; rather, he
had brought it up as an example of inter-jurisdictional collaboration.
Green did not think the MPC was the appropriate body to resolve issues because
of its voting structure. He
recalled his service as a Eugene City Councilor.
He pointed out that at the time he and past Springfield Councilor Lyle
Hatfield could have a conflict arise between jurisdictions and then work to
reach a resolution.
Wylie noted that Commissioner Stewart had assured everyone that the County was
looking at fiscal options but she pointed out that there were only four months
until July 1. She felt the cities
were not as “on top of it” as the County was and asked for an analysis of
when to put some emergency services into place.
Stewart offered to make presentations on the current options for the County
budget based on the different fiscal scenarios.
Piercy indicated her interest in better understanding how it would affect the
communities. She added that for her
it was important for the three jurisdictions to have “really good
discussions.” She thought that
what happened when they arrived at a decision point was a “whole other
thing.” She averred that there
were different philosophies and ways that the different communities decided to
move and operate. She felt there
were things that they shared and agreed upon and things they did not share and
agree upon. She wanted to look for
places where they could agree.
Sorenson related that the commission had been in a multi-meeting process to
provide direction to the staff on the budget process. He stated that the target date for release of the budget was
April 21 and that the hearings and public comment period needed to be completed
by the end of May.
Sorenson commented that there were a number of multi-jurisdictional bodies in
Lane County. He did not perceive
the MPC as being non-functional given that there had only been one veto in ten
years. He felt that if a body such
as the HSC was not functioning, the governing bodies should bring members before
them and ask why it was not working.
Lundberg surmised that there was general agreement that staff could move forward
with the Metro Plan issues. She
supported meeting quarterly. She
pointed out that the three jurisdictions had agreed on many plans in the past.
Woodrow expressed some concern that waiting 90 days to meet again was too long
given the potential emergency situation the County was facing.
He added that the veto power that could be exercised at the MPC sometimes
precluded having a conversation about an issue.
He supported coming up with a method to reach a solution.
Assignments – Next Steps
Stewart summarized the conversation and proposed the following as next steps:
Regarding the public safety issue, he
suggested that he try to get on the next available city council agendas in order
to provide a status report on the budget process;
The HSC, PSCC, and other relevant
bodies will discuss the issues related to their respective missions;
He asked the Mayors if it would be
possible to meet with the City Managers and the County Administrator together as
one to discuss the Metro Plan and transportation issues;
Another meeting of the Joint Elected
Officials should be scheduled for April.
Ballew said she would like to see the bodies be more “vigorous” and to be
more prepared to take action. She
declared that the time to talk was running short.
Taylor commented that if the problem with public safety was related to money she
did not see what the bodies could do about it. She asked what good it was to talk about it.
Taylor recalled an inter-jurisdictional group that had met to discuss
transportation problems some years earlier.
She felt that no one had acted on the suggestions that had been made.
Green supported the list as Commissioner Stewart presented it.
He stressed the importance of “starting somewhere.”
Regarding the public safety issue, he underscored that the County was a
subdivision of the State; the question that the jurisdictions should leave with
was what backup plan they would have in the event that the County had the ‘no
new revenue’ scenario. He said,
as an example, they should consider what their plan would be when local
prisoners could not be taken to the county jail.
Stewart thanked everyone for meeting. He
felt it had been a good meeting and he looked forward to the next one.
Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 7:56 p.m.
Leiken adjourned the meeting of the Springfield City Council at 7:56 p.m.
Stewart adjourned the meeting of the Lane Board of County Commissioners at 7:56
Manager Pro Tem
by Ruth Atcherson)