Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> received at 7:47 p.m., and Lane County was notified at 7:48 p.m. In case <br /> of a water rescue emergency, he said that the first responding unit will <br /> e take charge of the incident, stablize or prepare for the arrival of the <br /> other units, and additional equipment will be ordered. He said that this <br /> is a similar procedure to that which is used for other specialized <br /> equipment, and there are no time delays under this arrangement. He asked <br /> the council to consider spending $10,000 for the purchase of the water <br /> e rescue equipment. He said that the money would be drawn from contingency <br /> funds. He said that the City provides the water rescue training, which <br /> was allocated previ ously in the budget, and that everyone in Fire <br /> Operations will be trained to handle the equipment, which will most likely <br /> be stored at the central fire station. <br /> Mr. Holmer noted that Lane County's water rescue equipment is a long <br /> distance from the City. He asked if there was discussion with Lane County <br /> staff about having its equipment located closer to Eugene. The City <br /> Manager sa i d that the Ci ty had several conversations with Lane County <br /> staff, and any controversy about equipment duplication by the City and <br /> Lane County has been resolved. He said that the County's needs and <br /> response system is different from that of the City, and he believed that <br /> the location of the Lane County's water rescue equipment was appropriate <br /> since the County oversees approximately 50 bodies of water. <br /> Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that $10,000 be <br /> drawn from Contingency Funds to purchase the water rescue <br /> equipment. Councilors Hansen, Ehrman, Bascom, Rutan and <br /> Schue voting aye, and Councilor Holmer voting nay, the <br /> the motion carried 5:1. <br /> e <br /> IV. WORK SESSION: DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM <br /> The City Manager reported that the City Council asked for a redesign of <br /> the CIP and capital budget review process, based on Budget Committee and <br /> Planning Commission concerns. <br /> Ms. Brody presented the Planning Commission's recommendation and <br /> suggested review process. She said that the proposal would have the <br /> Budget Committee hold a public hearing on the CIP, and at the same time <br /> the CIP would be referred to the Planning Commission. The Planning <br /> Commission would not hold a public hearing, but it would have the benefit <br /> of the comments made at the public hearing before the Budget Committee. <br /> The Planning Commission would restrict its role to commenting on the <br /> consistency of the CIP with the Metropolitan Plan, and with other adopted <br /> City plans and policies. The City Council would then adopt the CIP with <br /> the benefi t of the comments from both the Budget Commi ttee and the <br /> Planning Commission. <br /> Ms. Brody reported that the Planning Commission considers it important to <br /> e hold a second public hearing before the City Council when the CIP comes to <br /> the counci 1 for final adoption. She said that there are currently two <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 6, 1986 Page 3 <br />