My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08/11/1992 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1992
>
08/11/1992 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2007 12:43:15 AM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:07:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
8/11/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
<br /> --~- <br /> e Services Only; realizes $325,000). <br /> Mr. Boles questioned whether the City was at the mandated level at the present <br /> time. <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Mounts, Hillary Kittleson of the Planning <br /> and Development Department indicated that the reduction would result in <br /> greatly reduced public notice and extensive changes to Eugene Code Chapter 9 <br /> (land Use). <br /> Mr. Boles pointed out that the component was from Strategy C and designed as a <br /> potential response to reduced revenues. He termed the reduction draconian. <br /> Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to drop the compo- <br /> nent from consideration at this time. <br /> Ms. Ehrman noted that the survey feedback indicated the public did not rank <br /> the service highly. <br /> The motion passed, 7:1. <br /> The council discussed Component 35A/B, land Use Permits (Increase Fees 150 <br /> Percent; realizes $110,000). <br /> Mr. Robinette moved, seconded by Mr. MacDonald, to include <br /> It Component 35A/B in the draft strategy. <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Robinette, Mr. Gleason clarified that the <br /> 150 percent increase represented an increase of 2-1/2 times over current <br /> levels. Mr. Mounts noted that current cost recovery was about 25 to 30 <br /> percent. Ms. Kittleson said that adoption of the component would bring cost <br /> recovery to 50 percent, a figure above the recommendations in the financing <br /> study. <br /> Ms. Ehrman said she would be unable to support the motion as she believed the <br /> increase was too great and the public benefit of the service significant. Mr. <br /> MacDonald agreed with Ms. Ehrman's comments. He suggested a smaller increase <br /> of 50 percent (realizes about $40,000) as a modification to the motion. Mr. <br /> Robinette accepted the modification. <br /> The motion passed unanimously. <br /> Mr. Nicholson suggested that staff prepare an analysis showing whether the <br /> City is required by the State to perform all the functions included in its <br /> land use permitting function. <br /> Mr. Gleason proposed that staff examine the comments submitted by councilors <br /> with the score sheets, and produce a document summarizing the council's <br /> expectations regarding services and the relationships between services, <br /> particularly in the area of Development Services. The council approved Mr. <br /> e <br /> MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 7 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.