Laserfiche WebLink
City Manager Taylor expressed confusion, given what was being said. He asked if the flexible funding cited <br />in proposed Policy 8 meant that General Funds should be allocated for preservation and maintenance. He <br />said he did not understand how this policy would inform the budget or what the words were intended to do in <br />bringing projects forward. He reiterated that he was not opposed to the amendments but wished for more <br />time to consider them and consult with staff. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly surmised that flexible funding meant funding from sources such as STP-U. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor remarked that it seemed to her that the amendments clarified that the councilors should be <br />more involved in the CIP. She felt language regarding flexible funding was clear. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor said on the surface the motion looked sound as it dealt with good communication and good <br />accountability. He thought two conversations were transpiring; one on whether the council should adopt the <br />CIP and its content and the other on what the financial goals and policies should be that impact the CIP. He <br />opined that the latter was a much larger discussion as it created a larger policy impact. He asked if delaying <br />adoption of the CIP would incur a hardship. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor responded that the CIP had been before the Budget Committee and the City Council <br />three times. He hoped that the council could act on the CIP. He shared that he had been impressed with the <br />City's financial management goals and policies and the seriousness with which the City followed them, as <br />demonstrated by the City's sound financial position that showed up in bond ratings and in the annual audits. <br />He reiterated that he needed more time to consider the amendment, as proposed. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Pryor, City Manager Taylor stated that adoption of the current <br />CIP primarily affected FY06. He reiterated that the council adopted a full CIP every two years. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor extrapolated from this that he could vote to approve the CIP at the present meeting knowing <br />that the CIP impacted FY06 and that there were concerns and issues around future years that needed further <br />consideration and more council %heck-ins" on the CIP. City Manager Taylor added that the council would <br />vote on the specific capital improvements projects recommended for FY06 and FY07 through the budget <br />process. <br /> <br /> Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to table the amendment and main <br /> motion to April 11. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Poling and Solomon <br /> voting in opposition. <br /> <br />5. ACTION: <br /> An Ordinance Concerning the Filing of Rabies Vaccination Certificates; Adding Section 4.403 <br /> to the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending Section 4.990 of That Code; and Providing For an <br /> Immediate Effective Date <br /> <br /> Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved that the City Council adopt <br /> Council Bill 4895, an ordinance concerning the filing of rabies vaccination certificates. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 11 <br /> Regular Session <br /> <br /> <br />