02/10/1986 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e provide a community contribution to the project. She also agreed that cuts should be struggled with later and approved the concept of additional airport commissioners. Mr. Holmer would like as much negotiating room as possible which can be applied to the design as well. The second-level boarding is essential, and the public needs to be persuaded that the design represents good management. He is willing to share the decision-making with other governmental bodies and to add members to the Airport Commission. Ms. Wooten supports the project as proposed at the $17.1 million level. The revenue projections are problematic, and she suggested that there be second- and third-tier cuts developed and available if those revenues fail to material- ize. The EDA needs to be worked with carefully in order to provide jobs. She supports a county-wide 2% room tax, but wants the municipalities to be in control of the project; she would support representation on the commission from outside the metropolitan area. Although she did not know what form it should take, she agreed that a program for involving public participation should be developed. She also suggested that the council not dismiss general obligation financing, even though she supports the room tax for now. Ms. Schue wants to remain flexible about the scope of the project and agreed that it is not yet time to consider cuts or changes in the project. She also supports a county-wide 2% room tax and the additions to the Airport Commission as long as airport personnel are under the control of City management. She also supported pUblic involvement and education and hoped a general obligation bond could be avoided. Ms. Ehrman would like to go to the joint committee with the project intact and a tiered list of reductions if funding is not available. The room tax is appealing to her because it need not go to the people for a vote. She commen- ted that the financial figures are not very realistic and, therefore, plans for cuts need to be made. She would prefer a county-wide 2% room tax rather than metropolitan and is not sure of the political realities. She has no problem with additional representation on the Airport Commission. Public involvement is problematic because either the subcommittee goes to the other bodies with options and flexibility which is open to suggestion and change, or they go with the project proposal intact. Mr. Rutan sees the project as a difficult challenge. The City of Eugene resources are probably not sufficient and it is appropriate to encourage the input of the other governmental bodies. But the City Council needs to provide leadership to meet the goal of building the airport. They need a logical way of presenting the project in phases, which affirms the design. The public has been involved and need to be educated further. A funding package needs to be put together by the City Council to take to Springfield and Lane County. The operation of the airport should stay with the City of Eugene, but he would support the Airport Commission being expanded. The role of the council is provide leadership, to get county-wide input, take the challenge, and not change the design. MINUTES--City Council Work Session February 10, 1986 Page 3