BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
October 6, 2010
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Bill Fleenor presided with Commissioner Rob Handy, Pete Sorenson and Faye Stewart present. Bill Dwyer excused. County Administrator Jeff Spartz, Assistant County Counsel Andy Clark and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present
9. PUBLIC WORKS
a. DISCUSSION/Formation of an Area Commission on Transportation (ACT) for Lane County.
Celia Barry, Public Works, commented that she was hopeful there would be consensus reached today on what the bylaws should say and the remaining issues regarding citizen appointments. She noted the Board will not be meeting for two weeks so their deadline for reporting back to the legislature is October 31.
Rob Zako, Project Manager, indicated that he prepared a decision package. His attempt was to make clear what the questions are before them: how many citizen members on the ACT, who they represent, who appoints them and how they are appointed. He offered options. He recalled in the past few days a few new items have come in. He indicated there is a letter from Rich Margerum, Planning Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon. Zako noted that Margerum did a study of ACTS with Susan Brody. Zako stated at the request of the Board he contacted Margerum to attend the meeting. Zako indicated Margerum was in Minnesota today but he offered general comments. With regard to how many citizens there should be, Margerum said most ACTS in Oregon have not faced an overwhelming demand to participate in decision making from the private sector. He said some ACTS have struggled to maintain private sector representation because the issues are long term, complex and meetings often take place during work hours. Zako noted the second item included was a letter from Gary Wildish. Zako indicated that Wildish was happy with what was in the decision package. He noted there was an e-mail from Bob Garcia, the Chair of the Confederated Tribes Tribal Council. Zako indicated Garcia was in Las Vegas and couldnít be there today, but he was happy with what was in the decision package.
Fleenor explained that subsequent to the OTC meeting, Chair Achterman respected their request to have this sent back to the Board for review and modification. He noted the point of contention is based upon the number of citizens and how those citizens are going to be appointed. He worked with Alex Cuyler, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, to come up with ideas on bridging this gap. He reported that Senator Prozanski had meetings with several city representatives, and Prozanksi spoke with Handy and Cuyler. Fleenor stated at his direction, Cuyler has prepared board orders they can use as a launching pad for discussion.
Cuyler noted the ďwhereas paragraphsĒ tell the story as to where they got to today. He said on the bottom of page 1, is where the rubber will hit the road. He indicated that he has had several conversations with Senator Prozanski subsequent to the meeting that was held last night. He said Prozanski has long been involved with this issue and he has expressed that he wanted to see something come out of this effort. Culyer indicated that SB944 gave everyone the opportunity to do that, but if they fail, Prozanski would write a bill that would implement his vision of an ACT for Lane County. Cuyler commented that he agreed with a number of parties that going to the legislature is not their favorite option. He thought they should look at what the chair had recommended. He put together the outcome of the meeting where the ACT should be the body that appoints the members. He noted with number 3, that there be no fewer than six members but no more than ten members and four of those members should be selected as stakeholders with individual expertise in the groups: trucking, rail, land use, and bike and pedestrian. He added that there would be a process for staggering the term. He indicated there would be four citizen groups, two citizen members and up to four more citizen appointments. He said they need the flexibility in the event the 50 percent membership has to be maintained in regards to elected officials.
With regard to number 2, Cuyler showed how those initial members would be created. He said there has to be a process and it was in line with Professor Margerum, who indicated that in looking at others that they created a selection subcommittee that then was disbanded after they selected their initial citizens and then once the ACT is created, they create the membership for the citizen members from the ACT itself as it moves forward. Cuyler recalled that the OTC said to come back with a great deal of collaboration. He didnít believe the OTC sees this ACT as the ACT that shall exist for all time. He said they had a report done that outlined the future of ACTS. He said according to the policy guidance, there is a process the OTC would like to see for a review of the bylaws to make sure the organization is functioning adequately. He understood that occurs at the end of year two. He said it is important to recognize there is flexibility. He said notwithstanding that the bill says ďmust comply with that policy formation,Ē his opinion is if they look at the legislative history, the intent was to create something that is an ACT and the policy formation is not necessarily something they have to abide by for time indiscriminate. He looked at what was translated to him by Prozanski and some notes Brenda Wilson, city of Eugene, took. He added that number 2 is to the selection subcommittee. He noted the selection subcommittee for number 1 is just those people self-appointed; elected officials from each entity under the bylaws who appoint themselves.
Zako noted that each city and the county have a reserved seat on the ACT.
Cuyler indicated that was different than Option 2 that has specific ACT members who are in the initial group. He noted the initial group will be the Lane Roads Advisory Committee, the Central Lane MPO, Eugene/Springfield and a rural cities representative, but it will be disbanded subsequent to the recommendation.
Fleenor indicated Option 2 was prepared based upon his perception of what he thinks the Board might accept and that is why they have Option 2. He hopes they can move forward with it. He asked the Board what they wanted to do today as far as involvement with the citizens.
Stewart was fine with either option. He suggested that in the proposal Fleenor put together for a compromise between Option 1 and Option 2 that they might want to consider adding an additional person. He indicated there are six people on the committee and he thought they could add another position that could be chosen from the non-elected positions. He thought a seventh person could potentially break any ties that may exist.
Sorenson said it is more important to him to have more citizen participation than less. He also stated that was more important than who appoints the people. He wanted to ramp the numbers up by two so it would read: ďThat the citizen members be set at no fewer than eight members but no more than 12 members and that six of these members be selected as stakeholders with individual expertise and be able to introduce the larger interests.Ē He said in addition to trucking, rail, land use and pedestrian issues, two other categories have specifically been brought to his attention that are active in other ACTS: health, and business. He thought they should add those positions.
Fleenor asked what Prozanski would think about eight members to 12 members.
Zako stated that they would have a problem with 12 members. He said the OTC requires that 50 percent of the members of the ACT be elected officials. He added that the elected officials he has under the current proposal is one from the County, 12 from the cities, three from the tribes, Port of Siuslaw and LTD, that count as elected officials. He indicated there are currently 16 members and the maximum size of the ACT is 32 members. He said if the proposal would go up to 12, they would be at 33 members.
Sorenson said they were told that not all cities are likely to participate. He said it is embodied in what is written in Paragraph 3. He said it states no fewer than six and no more than ten. He didnít see how moving from eight to 12 would affect it.
Zako commented that if the number 12 is an imaginary number, unless they add another elected body, there is no way to get there. He said they could write it into the bylaws, but it is not attainable.
Handy sensed they were getting close. He said one of the transportation commissioners mentioned that one of the biggest challenges for the ACT would be how the ACT actually works with the MPO. He said what they can learn from the MPO is commitment to public participation and citizen involvement. He noted with point 2, draft number 2, the MPO will help with the recruitment and public participation. He said it is important for the MPO to be able to make some of the key decisions with the stakeholders. He liked everything about draft 2, as it is balanced. He wondered if there could be some ranking of all the candidates. He thought it might help out the ACT by providing more information and it would also give some acknowledgement to the citizens who are applying that their application has been vetted.
Fleenor asked Handy what language he wanted to be inserted.
Handy said number 3 hits the middle ground with the numbers. He appreciated the stakeholder groups. He added that business and public health is very important. He didnít know if they would call it out or leave it for the discretion with the ACT. He added that part of this is a compromise.
Kevin Matthews, Friends of Eugene, wanted to see extra definition of land use. He said they could be talking about homeowners association or the Friends of Eugene. He said historically there are diametrically different views about land use and transportation. He stated that if they have enough citizens to allow the refinement, they could have a development land use perspective and an environmental land use perspective. He said that would help get the voices at the table that would support collaboration around doing the right thing with the roads.
Mayor Kitty Piercy said they have had conversations around the community. She indicated that she participated in a discussion with Prozanski and Paul Holvey last night to see where they could avoid the trip to the legislature. She said since it was always the intention to never have less than six members, they were all totally amenable to six for certain and up to ten, depending upon how many elected officials they have participating. She said because they have an extended list of people they wanted to participate and they heard the consistent and important desire to have good representation from a lot of citizens at the table and interest groups, they had no trouble supporting designating seats for the four categories listed. She said if environmental land use makes people more confident than land use, she was okay with that. She said they agreed with the concept that they have to stagger positions so it wouldnít be one turnover of members. She said for recommending the subcommittee members, they discussed that issue last night and had agreement that they didnít think it was a good idea. She thought it was something that the ACT itself could figure out. She said they canít speak for anyone else about that specific piece, but they can speak for everyone else in wanting to be in agreement about the numbers and who selects the numbers, the designated seats and the staggered terms. She said eight to twelve does not make sense and twelve members are not doable.
Sorenson wanted to use the biggest number. He commented that the number six is also a number they couldnít achieve if a number of the small cities chose not to participate. He said they have to be careful that the people representing the cities are in fact the mayors separate from appointed officials from the cities. He said if the cities appoint non-elected officials to be on the ACT then it diminishes the number of other non-elected officials on the ACT.
Zako stated the bylaws specify that the primary representatives from cities and counties shall be elected officials. He indicated there is a possibility that alternates could be staff but the primary representatives from the cities and counties are elected.
Stewart said it will be hard up to bump up citizen seats unless they had more elected officials. He said they have gone out of their way to include as many non-elected officials as possible. He said they have already maxed the number of elected officials.
Piercy stated that they have made the effort to respond to the Boardís major concerns about numbers and representation. She indicated they have all reached a place of comfort around trying to reach out and come to this agreement.
Fleenor asked Piercy if she would be comfortable with six members to not more than eleven members.
Piercy said she canít understand how it makes that much difference. She indicated that health and business representatives are already in the paragraph in the bylaws where they list everyone they would like to take into consideration. She added that they chose four positions to have specific seats, but the extended list is in the bylaws.
Sorenson wanted to call out health and business in the bylaws and call out the number. He wanted to state a maximum of 11 members.. He agrees that these positions are mentioned, but he thought part of the idea of drafting this was they were going to say of those citizen members, a certain number would be for truck, rail, land use and bicycle and pedestrian. He agrees that the term land use needs to be identified.
Fleenor said they have an agreement that land use can be expanded and they donít have an agreement that 11 is the number, but it is the maximum.
Zako thought with the discussions last night with Prozanski and others, that for land use advocates, (like 1000 Friends of Oregon, Landwatch Lane County and Friends of Eugene) the intent was to have a bike path, an environmental land use person, a trucking person and a rail person serve on the committee. He didnít know if it was the intention to add a fifth seat of having both an environment and business land use person getting a reserved seat.
Fleenor wanted to specify that land use is environmental land use
Mia Nelson, spoke with Prozanski and it was to ensure that 1001 Friends of Eugene were to have a seat.
Piercy understood land use to be environmental. She indicated that Leiken said it works for him.
Fleenor indicated there was agreement to put in environmental land use or other such term. He said they have not agreed upon 11 members and they can continue to debate it. He asked about the business and public health aspect.
Tom Schwetz, LTD, explained that from their standpoint, their interest is to reach agreement. He indicated that they rely heavily on collaboration. He said in serving the community they value the community as a whole for providing input for important decisions like the ones the ACT will be dealing with. He commented that they like what they see and their hope is to reach a conclusion.
Eleanor Mulder, Alternate for the Citizensí Advisory to the MPO, said she sat in on all the meetings. She said the CAC is strongly within its membership and they were all appointed at various times by various commissions, but not by individual commissioners. She said they have a fairly unified view that mass transit whether it be within the city, bus or train are important for a variety of persons who have no other alternative. She thought that part of the environmental picture is fairly well represented with the CAC. She said they had someone who represented the trucking industry, but he got too busy and he wasnít able to find a replacement. She noted there could be a private sector problem with people having other alternative things they need to do. She said Dave (the person she sat in for) was okay for modifying the membership and the appointment times.
Pam Hocken, League of Women Voters, said it looks like both proposals in front of them have a lot of merit. With items 3 and 4, she indicated that they went through an exercise to determine the top categories. She said they had the issue of accessibility for senior citizens and people with physical or mental challenges getting around. She said those categories are listed in the broader list. She said they were in agreement with the category picked for citizensí expertise and interest. She indicated they were also interested in staggering the terms. She said it is important to have continuity. She noted the bylaws call for a two year term for the citizen representatives. She thought it would be better at three years because it takes a long time to be able to work through the processes.
Fleenor asked Piercy about two years versus three year terms.
Piercy thought they should have one at one year, one at two years, to accomplish the same thing.
Zako said they have 16 elected officials maximum, if everyone shows up. He noted the non-elected seats include MPO ODOT, MPO CAC, Lane County Roads Advisory Committee, and Highway 126. He said they have used up five of 16 of the non-elected seats and 11 is the maximum. He said there is a paragraph in the bylaws that state if someone doesnít show up for three successive meetings, they lose their seats and are off of the membership charter.
Mayor Sid Leiken explained that this was from the push of small cities. He said they felt short changed as far as transportation dollars coming into their communities. He said the cities have been united on this. He said this is a benefit to the small cities throughout Lane County. He was more inclined to agree with what the other mayors want. He had no issue with regard to land use designation. He said he would stick where Mayor Hooker and Piercy are because they have represented the large and small cities and how this action proceeds.
Mark Shrives, Creswell, said he is representing the quasi small cities. He said after last nightís meeting, Mayor Hooker sent out Senator Prozankiís proposal number 1. He understands that Prozanski got support from the other mayors and they could live with it. He noted Handy was talking about the selection committee process. Shrives wasnít sure that was something that needed to be in the bylaws. He said it could be established by the ACT once it is up and running to determine how they select them. He thought they were getting hung up on the numbers. He thought everyone was comfortable with the number 10, but he thought there was some risk at some point if the mayors will have to take this back to their city councils, as it could be opened back up. He stated there is broad support from all the cities for Prozanskiís proposal. He said it meets all the goals everyone has been trying to reach.
Fleenor asked if the small town mayors would accept the environmental land use language.
Shrives didnít think it was a major issue. He thought going from 10 members to 11 members could be a deal breaker.
Kent Fleming, Roads Advisory Committee, said it is clear the ACT is the body that will select the citizen members. He thought it should be referred to a search committee because the committee is searching for the applicants and they are not selecting them. He said it is critical to get the best possible committee members.
Piercy said with regard to number 2, the selection subcommittee was something that they did not agree to.
Shrives reiterated that once the ACT is seated, they will determine the process.
Piercy agreed that was what was discussed last night.
Shrives said the selection subcommittee did not come out of last nightís conversation.
Piercy said they talked about it and came to the conclusion that it was something best done by the ACT itself.
Clark explained that it is not a search committee, it is an initial group of people that will select who will be the citizen representatives, and it is not an actual appointing group.
Fleming thought it was ambiguous.
Clark said once the ACT exists, they will appoint the representatives.
Piercy said the FACT-LC group would do the original process.
Zako recalled they would start with the people they have making the initial appointment, then moving forward they would have a larger ACT that would continue making appointments. He heard that the ACT couldnít meet the first time until some separate body was to appoint the citizen members. He understood from staff that the appointment process could take three to four months. He thought that was a new proposal.
Cuyler explained they would have the self-appointed people who would come together as an ACT first and they would then select the citizen membership group.
Nelson said they had concerns with the old draft and the number of citizens. She said they thought six members was an adequate number. She said they donít have a strong feeling on whether they should call out specific seats. She said the ACT has the potential to do a lot for rural cities. She said since the majority of the membership of the ACT was rural in nature, the fear is they would end up with a rural centric ACT that would swing the other way. She noted most of the transportation dollars were recommended going to rural cities. She said the problem is most people live and work in the metro area. She said most of the money should come here and most of the representation should be Metro oriented.
She said Eugene and Springfield could give away their representation on the ACT but they didnít want to be appointed by a body that was not representative. She said she has a problem with the Prozanksi proposal, as it is more rural centric than the pre-citizen ACT. She said there are 16 people with only three people representing the County, Eugene and Springfield. She thought the other proposal was better and well balanced. She agreed that three year staggering terms was better for her.
Andrea Riner, LCOG, commented that this is a large number of people. She thought the more flexibility they have the better they would be in building good citizens.
Sonny Chickering, ODOT, reported that both of the proposals falls within their policy and guidelines.
Fleenor said currently they have six to ten members. He thought that would be okay, but Sorenson wanted to see 11 members. Fleenor said he would put down six to ten members. He asked if they should change land use to environmental land use, and use the health and business suggestion by Sorenson.
Piercy stated that it was already covered in the bylaws.
Handy was comfortable with business not being a designated stakeholder slot, but he wanted to consider public health and thought they should call it out. He said that was the potential to have five of the stakeholders called out by special interest groups.
Clark said when he read public health in the ACT, he was confused by what it meant. He would just use the health system.
Fleenor asked if adding health was a deal breaker.
Piercy said they all recognize and it is written that they recognize the health issue needs to be part of the discussion. She wasnít sure a designated person could speak for all of the different facets of health that would be taken into consideration. She said the issue is important and they recognize that but they donít need a designated spot.
Zako said there are two issues. He said there is a steep learning curve and if someone is going to agree to be on the ACT, the number they have heard is a five year commitment. He noted the ACT is on the same two year cycle with the STIP.
Stewart said they might have a problem getting a citizen to commit to a four year term. He said when they see a four year commitment they hesitate to participate.
Piercy thought three years was a stretch when people are signing up but she was willing to go there.
Fleenor stated it wasnít an issue, they just wanted to accommodate the stakeholders.
Nelson thought it was a big issue. She said it is about making sure when the ACT takes over the appointments that there is a sufficient number of citizens that arenít up for renewal. She thought a four year rotation was better. She said they should tell people up front how long the terms are.
Fleenor asked if they wanted a four year staggered term with new appointees at one, two, three and four years and then rotate.
Sorenson recommended that they identify the positions so if they are going to a large number of citizen appointees that they think about scheduling them on a one, two, three and four year cycle so the positions are identified by specific years. He added that term stays with the position.
Shrives thought once in place the ACT can determine how it works. He didnít think they should get to that level of detail in the bylaws. He added the bylaws could be changed if they didnít work.
Fleenor asked if they should keep the terms at four years with the details to be worked out later.
Zako indicated it will be a staggered four year term for citizen at large members.
Barry indicated their draft for Highway 126 was for a two year term and that needed to be changed.
Fleenor indicated with number 1, he indicated the ACT is the body that would select the citizen members once the ACT is formed. He asked if that was the language they wanted. He said for number 2, he liked the concept of bootstraps for the initial appointment to get it launched and after that the ACT itself will start to appoint its own members. He thought they could find an area of compromise.
Piercy said when they had the FACT-LC, they had vigorous discussions about apportionality and fears and concerns about whether her community (that has the largest population) should have a stronger and bigger vote. She said they made a leap of faith choice to say no, that they would sit around the table evenly and no one would be more powerful than anyone else. She said it is the principle upon which the whole discussion rests.
Nelson said they already have the seats on the ACT and they have the MPO. She indicated that they are talking about the citizen seats. She thought it was fine for Eugene and Springfield to make that choice but this is about who gets them on the ACT. She wanted to see a separation on how everyone else gets on the ACT. She said they donít want the choice made for them by other citizens in the FACT-LC, because they werenít able to participate in how they were selected. She said it is about how they want to be appointed by a proportionate body.
Stewart said he is hearing from Piercy and the other mayors that the people on the FACT-LC will be making the decisions on the citizens. He said the Board will make the decision on Highway 126 and that person will be appointed. He said the FACT-LC was intended to have all those pieces. He said the people have to work together. He thought they had to get as many people as they can work together making the decision on who is going to be on the team. He thought they would have a better group than having five or six members picked from Eugene and Springfield making the appointments. He said there is a chance it might not be as good as it could be.
Handy said the flaw was that the original FACT-LC advisory committee did not include a robust citizen stakeholder element. He indicated they are still working on how they can that involved. He said they heard that some asked the Board of Commissioners to trust and have faith in the ACT. He is prepared to make that leap of faith. He said the ACT will be appointed and they are ready to go there. He said all the cities are at the table and he has been supportive of that from the beginning. He didnít want to write in the bylaws that this nomination or search bootstrap committee should be in the bylaws. He wanted to see the ACT take care of that. He believed the Board of Commissioners have moved from wanting to appoint ten members to including all the cities and giving their blessing to have the ACT appoint the members. He said his concession is they have a search committee to appoint the original stakeholders. He thought that was a good compromise.
Clark indicated it should say a selection committee should appoint.
Fleming thought that needed to be clarified.
Zako thought they were over thinking things. He said for item 2, selection and item 3 spelling out seats, are two different ways of saying the same thing. He thought they should pick one or the other. He said number 3 spells out the seats. He asked if they were spending too much time on what is really not much of a decision.
Fleenor thought Zako made an important distinction, that number 3 is going to be the members and how they are appointed is in number 2. He thought Handy made a good point that the Board of Commissioners had made a tremendous concession on the adopted proposal to todayís proposal, for the number 2 section on the number 2 board orders. He hoped the other stakeholders would consider that movement in good faith. He indicated they are trying to make it so they can move it forward and not have a legislative fix. He believed if they could get on item 2, they could move it forward today.
Piercy said from their position, they feel they have moved forward going between six to ten members and the listing of the designated spots. She commented that Fleenor thinks they moved and she said they have moved, but to her what they are asking is the crux of the question.
Sorenson asked in paragraph 4, if there is a process for staggering terms for citizen members including a structure to ensure that such flexibility exists to remove citizen members to ensure the 50 percent requirement regarding the elected officials is maintained. He wanted to advocate for a larger number of citizen members. He asked why they would remove citizen members if they already have the understanding that the member governments send elected officials and therefore they know the number and there is no reason to include a paragraph that talks about removing citizen members. He asked what the origin was for removing citizen members.
Cuyler was told if a person didnít show up for a certain number of meetings, (whether they are elected or not) they are off the committee.
Sorenson indicated the member government appoints the member. He asked what paragraph 4 was about.
Stewart asked if they should strike the paragraph.
Sorenson indicated that the staggered concept is a good one. He said his concern from day one is citizen participation and that was why he was interested in getting involved with the ACT in the first place. He didnít know why there would be a requirement in the board order to have a reduction in citizen members.
Fleenor believed there is consensus that number 4 should go to reappointment of the citizen members.
Spartz thought there could be a case if one or more member governments drop out. He added to maintain the 50 percent rule they would have to remove citizens.
Fleenor asked how member governments would drop out.
Spartz thought they would drop out by resolutions stating they were no longer going to participate in the ACT.
Fleenor thought that sentence should stay in.
Cuyler said what the order says is that it directs the consultant to go back and fix the bylaws with respect to these issues. He wasnít suggesting this as the language to go into the bylaws, he was suggesting these were the areas of contention and this was a way to come back to get the bylaws amended.
Nelson said from her perspective she didnít see concessions from the cities.. She saw the Board making all of the concessions because they said it was always their intention to have six members. She didnít see the value in calling out the individual stakeholders.
Schwetz recommended having the FACT-LC make the first four appointments; those appointments identified in number 3: a trucking, a rail, a land use/environmental and a bike ped person. He said they would join the FACT-LC and they would make the rest of the appointments.
Barry thought it would make more sense to enforce the self-selection process of the individual elected officials from the individual cities and the County would choose for the Roads Advisory and the CAC.She said they could then be involved in the appointment process for the remainder of the citizens.
Schwetz stated that was what he was recommending when he recommended the FACT-LC. He said the FACT-LC already has those representatives on it.
Mathews wasnít sure the FACT-LC was constituted with legal clarity in this type of governmental process. He wanted to specify the subcommittee. He commented that bootstrapping is something that exists in a more ad hoc way.
Clark thought the FACT-LC was a short term certain group of entities that are members. He added that they do not have a separate legal existence.
Zako recalled there was a board order and it specified who was on the FACT-LC. He added they are talking about the ACT minus the citizen at large members. He said the bylaws could be cleaned up to make that clear.
(The board recessed for ten minutes.)
Cuyler distributed a final draft of the board order. He replaced number 1, to make sure they worked off the May 18 version of the bylaws.
Handy noted item 3, is a sequential piece. He indicated there is order implied that before items 4 and 5 took place, the BCC would appoint the Highway 126 member and they would then join the other FACT-LC members and be an equal member with them. He said with item 5, the intention is identified in number 4 and it needs to be identified in number 2, so the reference is to the four identified stakeholder members is referenced in current item 4. He wanted a gentleman/gentlewomanís agreement. He asked if the intent in number 5 is that the ACT would select the remaining four to six members. He heard that if they have interest, they will appoint the maximum. He said it is not so much discretionary as having flexibility beyond any given point in time. He added in number 6, he asked if they could call out in a gentleman/gentlewomanís agreement that the four designated original citizen stakeholders should have the longer terms, so when someone is going to assign a one, two, three or four year term, that they are calling out the environmental land use, the trucking, the rail and the bike ped, and that they should have the longer terms.
Piercy asked in number 5 if the four slots would get four year terms.
Stewart asked if that would be more appropriate in number 4.
Nelson asked if they wanted all of those terms to go away at once.
Handy didnít know if they had to put this in a gentleman/gentlewomanís agreement. He said they have to trust the process.
Piercy thought it could be in a sidebar, legislative intention kind of comment.
Zako asked for clarity in what was being proposed. He was confused because they were talking about different bodies and giving FACT-LC some power it didnít have before. He said the Lane County Board of Commissioners will appoint the Highway 126 member. He said that is clear but it sounds like they canít move to the next step until that happens. He asked when the Board would have the person chosen so they could join the FACT-LC.
Handy thought they could coordinate with the Roads Advisory Committee and have applications they could bring it back to the commissioners. He thought it would take six weeks.
Barry commented that was a detail they didnít need to figure out. She said if the order is passed, the sequence issue could be worked out. She said it is not something they need to figure out.
Zako was concerned that this could be a nine month process before they get an ACT. He said if it takes a couple of months to get the Highway 126 member, the FACT-LC canít meet according to what it is intended in the gentleman/gentlewomanís agreement. He added the FACT-LC would go through a process where they would advertise for four members and go through a couple month process.
Handy asked if all of the recruitment processes could take place at the same time.
Stewart said they would use the Board process to appoint the Highway 126 representation and whoever will staff the ACT will do their recruitment. He said it can take place at the same time. He said the Board will not appoint someone to the ACT until the ACT gets its blessing from the OTC. He thought it was possible that if this board order passes, that staff goes through the normal process of recruiting for a position and they could have the position appointed by Thanksgiving or before.
Zako wanted to avoid having sequential things that spreads out for nine months.
Fleenor indicated that they then go back to the gentleman/gentlewomanís friendly agreement and they will expedite the appointment process.
Sorenson asked if some of the citizen members would be chosen by the MPO or CAC, Lane County RAC or, Highway 126. He noted those are positions that are citizen positions, but they are not selected by the ACT.
Zako responded those are the citizens at large positions. He explained it is the citizens who donít have other organizations.
Sorenson asked how it gets activated since they are so many seats designated by government. He asked if there was a need to designate a date. He said they are assuming everyone will want to appoint their people as soon as they can.
Fleenor responded that there is no designated date. He said they will make every effort to expedite the process.
Sorenson asked how the citizen members would be appointed.
Fleenor indicated the Board of County Commissioners will appoint the Highway 126 Corridor member.
Cuyler explained that Zako will go back and change the bylaws. He said the way they exist right now, the Board appoints the citizen members. He said this was to clarify the actual appointed members.
Cuyler said the role of FACT-LC is completed as far as people are concerned. He asked in number 5, instead of putting down the formation of the Area Commission on Transportation, if they could put down the people who are seated initially.
Barry explained that it would say that the initial selection for the citizen members would be established by the entities represented on the formation of an Area Commission on Transportation Lane County Committee, as the initial new ACT members, appointing the four identified stakeholder members and these members join the ACT in selecting the remaining four to six citizen members.
Nelson said they have to add the Highway 126 person. She asked if the intention of number 5 is that it should be the FACT- LC plus the Highway 126 person.
Mathews said the cleanest way to do this is to list the entities. He said it is longer but it gets past all the issues. He noted the language would just list the entities so it would be clear.
Stewart thought they should say that the elected positions and the designated seats in the ACT would be the appointing members. He said they wouldnít have to designate the FACT- LC.
Zako said for legal and funding purposes they need to be careful as to what bodies they designate. He noted in the ACT, after November 9, they will have a charter that will have by-laws and funding from ODOT. He added that Lane County will be off the hook for having to pay for it. He said the FACT-LC is an ad hoc construct. He said it is the same people, but it is what Lane County is paying for. His interpretation of the intent is to get the OTC to approve the ACT as soon as possible until November 9. He said staff will take a month or two before they have the first ACT meeting. He said once the ACT has truck, bike ped, rail and environmental land use in place, they go through a second round of selection and that body with the four added slots appoints the rest. He asked what bylaws they operate under and who would pay for it.
Cuyler recommended having those entities outlined in the membership section, (categories 1 to 5) to be the people who would do the initial appointment.
Zako said his discomfort is that it is not a onetime thing where people get together and make the appointment. He indicated that it will be a process where they meet once, figure out what to advertise for, get applications, and then meet again. He noted they will then have an entity that will be acting for awhile.
Cuyler said when they do the bylaws it would create a section that would discuss initial members.
MOTION: to direct staff to come back with a clear board order that makes it clear that the bylaws they are working off of (dated May 18, 2010) including the administratively agreed to amendments; that the ACT is the body that will select the citizen members except for the designated seats that would include Highway 126, Lane RAC, MPO, CAC position; that the Board of Commissioners shall appoint the Highway 126 corridor appointment.
Fleenor thought staff should be given direction to create the document in ten minutes.
Spartz thought if they could convey to the OTC that there is agreement in principle, the final wordsmith document will be approved by the Board of Commissioners on October 26 or 27.
Barry thought there was agreement on the language they discussed before. She indicated that all they would need to do is move, second and vote and it could be signed after adjourning the meeting.
Zako thought in order to get something to the OTCís agenda, it would be helpful to know there is agreement in principle at least among the people at the table recognizing they are missing 10 mayors. He said if the Board could vote today and no one objects, they can have an agreement in principle. He stated that gives ODOT staff permission to get it on the calendar for the OTC. He said at that point he will take their best attempt to see if it was what everyone had in mind. He added that he will circulate it by the end of the week to the Board and to the other jurisdictions. He said they will want approval not just from the Board but from the cities of Eugene and Springfield.
Chickering indicated that he had to have the bylaws by October 28.
Zako said the OTC wonít need to hear that every jurisdiction has ratified this until their meeting. He said he wanted the Board to pass a motion to give him direction to take the agreement in principle. He said if there are minor wordsmith problems they could come back on October 26 to fix them.
Shrives said he could speak for the small cities in principle but they will want to see the final bylaws to review before it goes to the OTC.
(Continuation of motion.)
That the citizen member seats (those identified as non-identified citizen member positions such as the three he previously mentioned) will be set at no fewer than six members but not more than the maximum allowed by OTC rules and four of these members be selected as stakeholders with individual expertise and ability to represent the larger interest of groups specializing in trucking, rail, environmental land use, bicycle and pedestrian issues. That the selection for the citizen members would be established by the former formation of ACT Lane County Committee, appointing the four identified stakeholder members plus the Highway 126 Corridor Committee appointment and that this be the first round of the selection but in future appointments the ACT would make the appointments and that these members will join the ACT in selecting the remaining citizen members. That there be a process for staggering the four year term election and subsequent reappointment of the citizen members not including the three identified citizen member positions and including a structure to ensure that flexibility exists to remove citizen members to ensure the 50 percent for elected officials is maintained if necessary and recognizing the policy directive to appoint as many citizen members as possible.
Sorenson MOVED, Handy SECONDED.
Handy amended the motion to clarify the agreement in number 4 that should be citizen members be set at no fewer than eight but no more than ten. He said they want to have a robust minimum and if they get ten quality applicants, they will fill the positions. He said it is also the intent of the bylaws that if they donít have the involvement they will make bylaw changes in a couple of years to adjust that number down. He thought initially they would have a lot of interest and eight should be the minimum.
Stewart said to make recommendations they need the quorum listed in the bylaws. He said if they donít have eight members, as long as they have a quorum present they can they move forward.
Sorenson accepted the friendly amendment.
Handy said number 5 reflects what it is they want. He added that number 4 would have eight as the minimum and ten as the maximum.
11. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
13. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business Commissioner Fleenor adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.