Laserfiche WebLink
Regarding local control, Mayor Torrey felt it extremely likely that there would be legislation <br />pushed through both houses, though he thought it unlikely that the governor would sign it, that <br />would remove some local control over issues such as a gas tax. He believed that could preclude <br />the council from addressing the road maintenance problem. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey stated that having a no net increase in the UGB was an appropriate and responsible <br />approach to the expanding urban growth boundary questions. He thought it unlikely that the 20- <br />year land supply would not stand a chance. He commented that the no net increase approach <br />allowed the municipality to look at the UGB and decide where it could be moved to make best <br />usage of the land. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly encouraged the council to think positively about Ballot Measure 28. He commented that <br />he wanted the "opportunity to work hard for its passing." <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the 2003 Legislative <br /> Policies Document with the addition of the four small items listed in his e- <br /> mail, language responsive to Ms. Nathanson's concern about local use of <br /> revenues, and striking item F(4) on page 62 relating to public disclosure. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to amend the motion by revising <br /> Chapter 3, Section 3 (7) on document page 18 so as to strike all of the grey- <br /> line language and replace it with the revised language regarding PERS <br /> distributed to the work session. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to substitute the following <br /> recommendation for the recommendation included in the revised language of <br /> Chapter 3, section 3 (7), as follows: "Support efforts to lower PERS costs to <br /> the City as soon as possible, including but not limited to making PERS a <br /> defined contribution plan." <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner opposed the amendment. He stated that staff and the lobbyists clearly know the spirit <br />and intention of the council and what methods are best to control costs. He felt that this <br />amendment would "tie their hands" as it would make them pursue a single solution. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Meisner. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor disagreed, stating that the time was right to "stick up" for the desired response. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ felt that the PERS was not working and another system needed to be pursued. He said <br />that the City needed to decrease the impact of the PERS. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 2002 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />