Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />Mr. Smith advised that the City of Eugene develop a precise list of priorities <br />to present to the Oregon Congressional delegation. Those priorities need to <br />be established early in the year in order to transmit them to the delegation. <br />Mr. Smith said that because our relationship with the delegation is good that <br />the year can be very productive. <br /> <br />B. Lobbying Work Plan and Process <br /> <br />Ms. Cherry presented the report on the work plan. The work plan designates <br />contacts with the delegation only when all leg work with the members' personal <br />and committee staffs is done. All City contacts will be timed and coordinated <br />carefully through the Intergovernmental Relations Division. A third work plan <br />item is to establish some measures of success for the program, with a prelimi- <br />nary evaluation to be done in September. Any letters to the delegation stat- <br />ing official City policies or positions should go over the Mayor's signature. <br />One of the communication tools will be a monthly conference call between Mr. <br />Smith and the City Council and Mayor. <br /> <br />C. 1986 Federal Priorities <br /> <br />Ms. Cherry reported that a department survey will be completed by January 30, <br />1986. The Legislative Subcommittee will be asked to meet the week of <br />February 10, and Federal priorities are on the City Council agenda for the <br />week of February 19. This will allow a week and a half to prepare for the <br />trip to Washington, DC. A list of lithe vital few" items will be prepared for <br />presentation to the Oregon Congressional delegation. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />III. DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS <br /> <br />e <br />'. <br /> <br />Mr. Hansen asked if there are a few programs which the City will need to work <br />on which might be in danger of being cut. Mr. Smith explained that he doesn't <br />think Congress will dismantle any more than necessary in an election year. He <br />expects Congress to confront the tax issue. However, competition for funds <br />will be acute. The airport project is fairly safe and has a high priority <br />rating. FAA discretionary funds for this project are user-financed, are dedi- <br />cated, and are therefore in less danger than general fund-financed programs. <br />Eugene has presented a solid proposal and the Oregon delegation is in a <br />position to be helpful. <br /> <br />Mr. Rutan asked about the status of the City's request for airport project <br />funding. Mr. Smith responded that the application submitted to the FAA is for <br />$4.7 million. This comes from a combination of entitlement funds (FAA trust <br />funds) and through discretionary funds (also trust funds distributed at the <br />discretion of the Secretary of Transportation). The groundwork with the staff <br />in Washington, DC, has begun. Negotiations are with both the regional and <br />district offices as the funds are distributed regionally. Mr. Rutan also <br />asked if the non-terminal requests (landscaping, parking lot, etc.) were over <br />and above the $4.7 million. <br /> <br />Mr. Whitlow explained that the $4.7 million is divided into three packages: <br />1) $1.8 million the first Federal year; 2) $700,000 over the next Federal <br />year; and 3) $2.2 million discretionary money. Mr. Rutan asked if there were <br /> <br />MINUTES--City Council Work Session <br /> <br />January 13, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />