Laserfiche WebLink
City Manager Taylor underscored that almost every project in the CIP included extensive public planning <br />processes; ideas for projects were never weighed for the first time in the CIP. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap~ alleged that there were several projects that the council had not seen before. He asked that a <br />work session be held on how the council would want to work through the draft CIP in the future. <br /> <br />Regarding Councilor Bettman's amendment, Councilor Pap~ said he assumed she referred to transportation- <br />related capital improvements. He asked if it was necessary to pass the CIP at the present meeting. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor responded that, while it was not urgent that the council pass the CIP on this night, he <br />hoped it would pass. He felt the amendment as proposed was worthy of further discussion, but that it was <br />related to the City's financial goals and policies and not the CIP. He stressed that this was the last meeting <br />until April 11 and the draft budget was slated to be proposed on April 25. He said it would be difficult to <br />make recommendations without an adopted CIP and council direction on some of the projects for FY06. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman indicated she would not support the CIP because it was a "moving target" and she did <br />not know what was really in it and how it was to be funded. She did not see her amendment as an obstacle <br />because the City Manager already had a projection of what would be included in the capital budget. She <br />suggested he put the projection into the proposed budget and then the council could make changes as <br />necessary. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman affirmed that Councilor Pap~ was correct in assuming that she intended to refer to <br />transportation infrastructure in proposed Policy 8. <br /> <br />Continuing, Councilor Bettman said her original approach was a project-specific approach. She had been <br />prepared to propose that STP-U money be removed from the Chad Drive extension and the Monroe/Friendly <br />Bikeway project's STP-U funding be removed, but realized the underlying concern was that there was a lack <br />of council policy direction in the document. She asserted that while the City Manager said projects in the <br />CIP were based on other plans and policies, when she had worked with other plans and policies, staff <br />indicated that the projects were drawn from the CIP. She felt she was unable to "get in there" and have an <br />influence on the decisions. She was amenable to postponement of the discussion. <br /> <br /> Councilor Kelly offered a friendly amendment to insert the word 'transportation' before the <br /> word 'infrastructure' in Policy 8. The maker of the motion accepted the friendly <br /> amendment. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly supported the amendment. He felt the amendment informed the CIP and would provide the <br />council with the opportunity to weigh in on changes in funding for the projects. He said if he perceived that <br />the amendment sought to change the financial goals and policies he would not support it. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor read the following from the bottom of the proposed amendment: <br /> <br /> "In the event that the council adopts the above motion, the City Manager and finance staff will bring to <br /> the Budget Committee in the normal course amendments to the City's Financial Management Goals and <br /> Policies to incorporate the above." <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 10 <br /> Regular Session <br /> <br /> <br />