09/09/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Mounts said that the Policy D-6 provides for the creation of a sinking fund for assets greater than $1 million and with a useful life greater than ten years, including creating a revenue stream for the fund. Mr. Nicholson expressed concern that the council have some standard for assessing capital projects. Mr. Nicholson moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to amend the motion, deleting Policy D-6. The motion failed, 2:5; Ms. Bascom and Mr. Nicholson voting in favor. The main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. III. WILLAKENZIE AREA PLAN AMENDMENTS Allen Lowe, Planning and Development, noted that the council adopted the Willakenzie Area Plan with several amendments on June 8, 1992. The plan was subsequently reviewed and adopted by Lane County Board of Commissioners, with an additional three amendments, all having to do with transportation projects. The first amendment affects Delta Highway, Ayres Road to Beltline Road. The amendment requires property owner assessments for sidewalk improvement on the west side of Delta Highway, outside the urban growth boundary, be reviewed by them prior to project initiation. Mr. Lowe said that this request is nothing more than complying with existing policy. e The second amendment by the County Commissioners affects Ayres Road, Delta Highway to Gilham Road. The amendment requires design approval by the board and the City Council prior to project initiation. Responding to a question from Mayor Miller, Mr. Lowe said that there would have to be agreement between the jurisdictions before the street could be built. Mr. Robinette noted that under current policy, the City makes the decision. Responding to a question from Mr. Green, staff said that redesign costs are borne by the City. Responding to a question from Mr. Robinette, Jan Childs, Planning Division Manager, said that if the council declined to approve the amendments, City staff would have to negotiate with the Board of Commissioners, which would delay the final approval by the lane County and the City of Eugene. Th is, in turn, would delay Springfield's adoption of amendments to the Metro Plan, the TransPlan, and the Public Facilities Plan. Ms. Childs said that staff is willing to accept the County amendments, feeling that it is an important issue to address the next time the jurisdictions reviewed their Urban Transition Agreement, to try to determine what the County's longer-term posture is. She noted that the County is taking a similar position with regard to the Gateway Refinement Plan on the Springfield side. Ms. Childs said that the policy issues raised by the County's amendments need to be discussed as part of the overall Transition Plan. Mr. Rutan urged adoption of the amendments, barring real substantive concerns. He agreed with staff that the issues raised can be addressed in a more e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1992 Page 5 11 :30 a.m.