CC Minutes - 05/27/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

input process regarding the district and potential projects had only recently begun, and suggested that might be a more appropriate process to address undergrounding opportunities. Responding to a suggestion from Ms. Bettman that timing was not an issue given that the dollars in question did not yet exist, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson said that timing was an issue as LTD anticipated it would go to bid for the project in the new few months; he clarified that the funding request would be for existing urban renewal dollars. Ms. Bettman indicated she had some issues about the subject as it related to the financing of the project and project timing. She called for a work session on the topic rather than a shod five- minute discussion. Ms. Nathanson said that the motion was to direct the manager to bring back a proposal for council consideration, rather than to direct the expenditure of funds. Ms. Bettman questioned whether the staff should be directed to do further work if the council had not agreed it wanted to move forward. Ms. Bettman moved to table the motion until a work session could be scheduled. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Meisner had concerns about the motion because he questioned whether the expenditure being proposed represented the highest and best use of the district's funds. He said that the City would have less land to market in the area because of other decisions that had been made about Millrace and preservation of the Agripac offices. He questioned both the funds available and what other needs existed in the district. He requested extensive financial analysis from staff regarding the district and the district's cost recovery from its purchase of the courthouse site. Mr. Kelly concurred with the comments of Ms. Bettman and Mr. Meisner. He expressed concern about the council's recent trend toward having mini-work sessions under "items." He suggested that the council consider a way it could accommodate motions that prompt several minutes of discussion. Mr. Kelly asked if Ms. Nathanson and Ms. Solomon would accept a friendly amendment indicating the proposal would be brought back at a work session. Ms. Nathanson and Ms. Solomon agreed. Mr. Kelly asked that the proposal include the financial analysis requested by Mr. Meisner as well as information about other undergrounding opportunities. Mr. Pap~ asked if EWEB had the funds to support undergrounding utilities. He also requested information about the funds LTD might have to support such a project. Ms. Bettman determined from City Manager Taylor that he did not think the motion precluded staff from returning with a range of funding option. Ms. Nathanson concurred, saying that was her intent. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Pap~ said that he and Ms. Nathanson were working with City Manager Taylor on next steps in the goals process, and at the suggestion of Mr. Taylor had two proposals to offer, one of which involved hiring a consultant to work with the council and another that related to the structure of the goals session. He said that in the absence of objections, he would like the manager to proceed. Ms. Taylor noted her objection to having another facilitator. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 2 Work Session