Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Piercy stated that the next item for discussion was the transportation issues related to new growth, <br />referred to on page 28 of the document. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said that since the council had spent so much time discussing the backlog of capital projects, he <br />wanted to make sure the council had the opportunity to think about initiating it as part of the legislative <br />session. He underscored the enormity of the backlog and asked if there was something the council could do <br />at the State level. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman appreciated this, but believed that within the recommendations the CCIGR had covered “the <br />fact that preservation and maintenance” were a high priority. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said without an inkling of what might come forward he could not come up with language for the <br />legislative document. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé thanked Mr. Pryor for bringing this item up. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy said the next issue of discussion was in regard to the boundary commission. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that the council had taken a stand on this item before. She felt that since it was in the <br />document, the council should discuss it. She asked what the cost of the commission was and where the <br />money came from. Paula Taylor, executive officer of the Lane County Boundary Commission, explained <br />that the boundary commission was a State agency and had to operate with a budget consistent with Oregon <br />Revised Statute (ORS) 199. She stated that the budget from the boundary commission was adopted by <br />administrative rule and was not part of the legislatively approved budget, which meant the commission <br />received no General Fund money from the State. She said the commission collected the majority of its <br />revenues from assessments to cities and certain special districts in Lane County and it generated almost half <br />of its revenues through filing fees. She clarified that there was a cap in the statute of what the assessment <br />rate could be. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor stated that Eugene’s portion of the cost was <br />$32,294. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if the boundary commission was disbanded. Ms. Taylor replied that <br />the business of the boundary commission would be processed through the City Council, with the exception <br />of special districts, which would be addressed by the Lane Board of County Commissioners. She added that <br />the County would also have the authority to form or dissolve new units of government. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not think the council needed to come to a conclusion at this level. She thought the CCIGR <br />could take information and questions and discuss it further and make a recommendation to the council if it <br />needed further discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé pointed out that the boundary commission was the last one in the State. He believed it would be <br />brought up at the legislative level again. He suggested holding a work session on this item after the new <br />year. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz agreed the council needed a work session on the boundary commission. She related that her <br />constituents told her that they found it to be another layer of government that was cumbersome and possibly <br />not necessary. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />