Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />are not Eugene Agenda items, would account for more than half of the total <br />revenues needed for the Eugene Agenda. He suggested that the Federal Revenue <br />Sharing Capital Projects should perhaps be omitted from the list because they <br />complicate thinking about the other projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom noted that the pool and library occupied half of the item because <br />of ongoing operating expenses. Ms. Wooten thought the council should consider <br />the elimination of Federal Revenue Sharing projects, which would amount to <br />$82 million if that revenue were forthcoming. Ms. Wooten proposed going <br />around the table and letting each councilor name preferences for the package. <br />This would be the first step before going on to discussions of funding sources. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller said airport expansion was his first priority, followed by those <br />Capital Improvements Projects which had been funded by Revenue Sharing. It <br />was necessary to decide whether the public would be presented with a full or <br />an abbreviated package. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer favored separating the pool and 1 ibrary as a separate "menu. II They <br />should be separate on the November ballot. He was concerned that so much was <br />being planned for the first ten years without additional revenue sources. <br /> <br />Ms. Schue agreed that the library and pool should be separated from the rest <br />of the items. The public needs to indicate priorities and a "menu" should be <br />offered. However, there should be no "menu" on the final ballot, but a cohe- <br />sive package. <br /> <br />Ms. Ehrman said she leaned towards a menu-oriented ballot. Voters should have <br />a chance to decide for individual items. <br /> <br />Mr. Hansen named his preferences in this order: airport terminal expansion, <br />Riverfront Science Park, and the total CIP needs. He felt these should be <br />offered as one package. He expressed concerns about building a new swimming <br />pool. Public input was necessary to guide the council in its final choice. <br /> <br />Mr. Rutan indicated that his contacts with the business community had con- <br />vinced him that they had little understanding of the Eugene Agenda and related <br />items. They had not had access to enough information. He called for a simple <br />format for introducing the items to the public and gathering feedback. <br /> <br />Ms. Wooten said she supported the idea of airport terminal improvements, <br />including improvements for the second level. She proposed removing the River- <br />front Science Park from the package because it will probably be financed by <br />tax increment funds; it did not need to be presented to the voters. On down- <br />town revitalization, Ms. Wooten was concerned that there was no developer. <br />While she expressed support for the project, she did not think it could be <br />included in the revenue reouest without a guarantee of what will happen there. <br /> <br />Regarding transportation, she thought it would be best to consider how to <br />blend specific transportation issues into the unfunded capital infrastructure <br />requirements. She said entrance beautification was not a "frill" but an <br />important project. The pool and library should be separate ballot items. <br />Finally, she proposed looking at the CIP list to make sure that it did not <br />contain serious omissions. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session <br /> <br />June 3, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />