My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 03/07/05 Mtg
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2005
>
CC Minutes - 03/07/05 Mtg
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:26:46 AM
Creation date
4/22/2005 2:41:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
In response to Councilor Pap6, City Manager Taylor stated that the amendment was iterated in the <br />agreement with the hospital and because of this he was amenable to it. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 7:0; Councilor Pryor abstaining. <br /> <br /> Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend the Policy Guidelines on <br /> page 8 of the Capital Improvement Program to add the following three policies: <br /> "7. Funding sources that have been identified for a specific project and <br /> approved with the adoption of the Capital Improvement Program shall remain the <br /> funding source for that project unless a specific exception is directed by the council. <br /> "8. Flexible funding available from federal, State, County, and local sources that is <br /> eligible will be used to fund maintenance and preservation of existing capital <br /> infrastructure, unless a specific exception is directed by the council. <br /> "9. New capital projects that are located within the Eugene City limits will be reviewed <br /> by the Eugene City Council before inclusion into any regional or multi-jurisdictional <br /> project list or plan." <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman stated that this amendment was necessary in order for her to vote in favor of the CIP. <br />She reiterated her concerns regarding the Chad Drive extension, which was originally proposed to be funded <br />by assessments and systems development charges (SDCs) but ultimately had become a project to be paid for <br />by assessments and Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funding. She wished to be assured <br />that the source of funding for a project would remain the same and if it would be changed, that the City <br />Council would be given the opportunity to approve or deny the change. She reiterated that the council had <br />committed to fund maintenance and preservation projects first. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly enthusiastically supported the amendment. He complimented Councilor Bettman for taking <br />a different approach. He felt that the CIP was a challenging and voluminous document and it was easy to <br />miss something unusual. He said the amendment would not affect projects that were underway. He likened <br />it to taking a "yellow highlighter" and underlining certain projects in order to flag them specifically for the <br />City Council. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon asked City Manager Taylor to speak to the amendment. City Manager Taylor said staff <br />had not received the proposed language in advance of the meeting and would like the opportunity to review <br />the amendment and understand its implications. He was uncertain what the exact meaning of 'flexible' was <br />under proposed Policy 8. He stated that the amendment seemed to be aimed at the City's financial goals and <br />policies and reiterated that he wished to have more time to explore its implications. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon concurred. She preferred to have a lengthier conversation on the proposed amendment. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor cited, as an example, a potential change in funding sources that could occur as a result <br />of the United Front lobby efforts. He asked how this would be handled, should Councilor Bettman's policy <br />changes be approved. He emphasized that these issues would be better dealt with in the context of policies <br />and not as addenda to the CIP on the final night of its adoption. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap~ appreciated the intent of the motion. He agreed that the CIP was a complex document. He <br />thought it deserved more attention from the Budget Committee and the City Council. He commented that he <br />assumed some staff time and planning had gone into the numbers included with the projects. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 9 <br /> Regular Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.