Laserfiche WebLink
would like to see them funded as well as the station. She supported the amendment as a <br />compromise. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said her calculations indicated that the site being purchased, which was only partially <br />inside the city limits, would cost $375,000 per acre, or $65,000 per lot. While she acknowledged <br />that she was not a real estate expert, that seemed high to her. She asked for the rationale behind <br />the price. Ms. Jensen responded that the parcel was appraised by a certified appraiser. She said <br />that the appraiser listed comparable properties and certified values in his appraisal. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if staff would be able to work on the plans that the amendment called for in the <br />next fiscal year. Jim Croteau, Acting Assistant City Manager, reminded the council that it directed <br />staff to return in the next budget cycle with a recommendation on plan implementation. He <br />anticipated that some of the work involved would be done by a consultant. Other tasks, such as <br />the refinement plan update, would be done by staff, and they would have to be incorporated into <br />the work plan. He noted that the committee envisioned the Transition Manager it recommended <br />would be a City staff member. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said that the council needed to keep in mind that the area in question was not receiving a <br />full level of City services. He supported the amendment because it would help forward some of <br />the committees' other recommendations. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Pap~ to use $400,000 from the Bond Fund <br />Reserve and $155,000 from the Facilities Reserve. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey determined that there was no staff objection to the amendment. Mr. Carlson said <br />that the source of the funds was a policy choice for the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson was not prepared to support the use of Facilities Reserves as it would put the <br />projects envisioned out of context. She pointed out that other neighborhoods had been waiting for <br />a refinement plan for two decades. She questioned why this neighborhood should go ahead of <br />other neighborhoods. She also questioned whether the amendment removed pressure from Lane <br />County to help financially with the project. In the absence of discussion of those issues, she was <br />not prepared to support the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said that if there had been more money in the River Road/Santa Clara reserve, he would <br />not have supported the amendment. However, he wanted to maintain the momentum created by <br />the transition planning effort. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to extend time for the item by two <br /> minutes. The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought the initial motion was straightforward and represented an appropriate use of <br />the money in question. She suggested that the issues raised by Mr. Kelly be addressed at a later <br />time. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that the council had an opportunity to address the concerns of a neighborhood that <br />was at a critical juncture. He supported the amendment because he did not want the City to <br />repeat the mistakes it made in other neighborhoods, such as his own. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Taylor, and <br /> Mr. Rayor voting no. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />