I spent almost two hours sitting in City Council today. There were some interesting items on the Agenda, particularly Metro Councilor Robert Liberty outlining his proposal for a Windfall "Givings" tax on properties brought into the Urban Growth Boundary and/or upzoned (increased in density) inside it. But the reason I sat listening all morning was that I was waiting for a minor item to be reviewed, allocating $83,000 in staff time to the Columbia River Crossing bridge proposal. Dylan Rivera summarized the latest committee decision on this project in today's Oregonian, and I've covered the process on my current interests blog since January.

Here's my testimony to Council today:

I'm Amanda Fritz, speaking only for myself. I served on the Planning Commission from 1996 to 2003. One of the projects to be reviewed by the Planning Commmission towards the end of that period was the preliminary report on the Columbia River Crossing bridge. The Planning Commission sent a recommendation to Council which I presented here [at Council], urging the Council to review the proposal in relation to Portland's needs, the regional context, and land use/employment in North Portland and Clark County. I don't know if that review ever happened. So I have many questions, which I know you can't answer today with Commissioner Adams absent. They include:

* How does this proposed new bridge relate to other regional transportation needs?

* Did you know that any one of six jurisdictions can veto this project?

When this project was reviewed while I was on the Planning Commission, the projected cost was $2 billion. It's now $4.2 billion, just five years later.

This decision-making process feels a lot like the tram approval to me. It's not clear who is making the decisions, it's not clear whether Portland's citizens support the project as proposed.

So I have two final questions:

Have you asked the Planning Commission to hold hearings and comment on this proposal? And how much further down this process will you go before holding a hearing here to have a Council vote on it? This morning's item puts "only" $83,000 in staff time towards the project. It's already cost millions in planning. I want Portland to make a reasoned decision on the I-5 bridge before too much more money has been spent and it becomes a done deal.

None of the three Councilmen present (Mayor Potter and Commissioners Leonard and Sten) had answers for me. It seems Commissioner Adams is the only one who's tracking it -- scary, for a $4.2 billion project which will sap funds from other parts of the Metro region. If I am elected to the Portland City Council, I won't expect citizen volunteers to spend two hours waiting for a turn to speak for three minutes on a huge issue like this. I'll be asking these questions myself, and making sure there is a clear public process to take and truly consider citizen input when it can make the most difference.

After the hearing, a staff member from Transportation told me the Planning Commission will receive a briefing in the first months of next year. "Not a hearing?", I asked. "No, that's not in the plans, the hearing will be at Council." So I have a call in to the President of the Planning Commission, to ask that the citizen experts there hold a public hearing and provide their considered recommendation to Council on this matter. Again. If there is a hearing at the Planning Commission to inform their advice, I hope the Council will then heed it.