CC Minutes - 11/08/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor agreed that constitutional amendments should meet a higher standard in order to avoid frivolous initiatives. Ms. Bettman thought there already was a higher standard for constitutional amendments in the mind of the voters. The motion to amend passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to extend the discussion by 15 minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy stated that the next item for discussion was the transportation issues related to new growth, referred to on page 28 of the document. Mr. Pryor said that since the council had spent so much time discussing the backlog of capital projects, he wanted to make sure the council had the opportunity to think about initiating it as part of the legislative session. He underscored the enormity of the backlog and asked if there was something the council could do at the State level. Ms. Bettman appreciated this, but believed that within the recommendations the CCIGR had covered “the fact that preservation and maintenance” were a high priority. Mr. Kelly said without an inkling of what might come forward he could not come up with language for the legislative document. Mr. Papé thanked Mr. Pryor for bringing this item up. Mayor Piercy said the next issue of discussion was in regard to the boundary commission. Ms. Bettman noted that the council had taken a stand on this item before. She felt that since it was in the document, the council should discuss it. She asked what the cost of the commission was and where the money came from. Paula Taylor, executive officer of the Lane County Boundary Commission, explained that the boundary commission was a State agency and had to operate with a budget consistent with Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 199. She stated that the budget from the boundary commission was adopted by administrative rule and was not part of the legislatively approved budget, which meant the commission received no General Fund money from the State. She said the commission collected the majority of its revenues from assessments to cities and certain special districts in Lane County and it generated almost half of its revenues through filing fees. She clarified that there was a cap in the statute of what the assessment rate could be. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor stated that Eugene’s portion of the cost was $32,294. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if the boundary commission was disbanded. Ms. Taylor replied that the business of the boundary commission would be processed through the City Council, with the exception of special districts, which would be addressed by the Lane Board of County Commissioners. She added that the County would also have the authority to form or dissolve new units of government. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 7 Work Session