02/25/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Miller suggested adding the underlined words to the definition of CIP Priority 2 items. Projects which are needed to preserve or upgrade existing city assets, save on operating costs, and are consistent with the Six-Point Economic Diversification Program or the Eugene Agenda, and which could, conceivably be postponed from one to three years. Mayor Obie said the comment could be "or consistent with the Six-Point. II e Discussing the Budget Committee and how it should be directed, Ms. Schue said the committee has a set of priorities which are not the same as the council goals. The committee's first goal has been public safety. Mayor Obie did not think the council should allow the council and Budget Committee priorities to be different. All programs should move toward the council's goals. Mr. Miller agreed that some nudging toward council goals is necessary. Ms. Bascom said items in the Agenda are so costly, perhaps they should be funded separately. Some CIP projects are very "dear to the hearts of some people." The Budget Committee needs to listen to citizens and include projects in the CIP which are important to citizens. Mayor Obie pointed out the refinement planning process for the Riverfront Park cost the City about $50,000 and the airport expansion design process costs $30,000 a month. There are increments to those projects which could be addressed now and should be considered by the Budget Committee. He suggested the conversion of Willamette Street to two-way traffic should be compared to projects in the CIP such as the renovation of playing fields. Answering a question from Ms. Bascom, Mayor Obie said he had not decided which items in the Agenda should be in the CIP. The CIP subcommittee of the Budget Committee should discuss that with the staff. Mr. Miller said capital projects should be prioritized to prepare for a reduction in Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. Continuing the discussion of direction to the Budget Committee, Mayor Obie suggested maintaining the projects in Priority 1, changing the definition of Priority 2 as suggested by Mr. Miller, and eliminating Priority 3 projects. Mr. Hansen said the whole CIP should not be tied to the Six-Point Program because that would limit the CIP. However, he did not object to eliminating Priority 3 projects because they are discretionary. Mr. Holmer thought some projects in Priority 3 are very important. For example, street lights involve public safety. He suggested directing the Budget Committee to consider the Agenda, the Six-Point Plan, and the three priorities. Mr. Gleason asked the staff to prepare a resolution for council consideration which will provide instruction to the Budget Committee to consider the Six-Point Economic Diversification Program and the Eugene Agenda in addition to Priorities 1, 2, and 3. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 1985 Page 6