CC Minutes - 01/29/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly emphasized the importance of a finance policy and one that was not overly rigid. He continued to favor Option 2. He also was comfortable with Option 4 as a compromise with the modification suggested by Mr. Meisner. Regarding LTD's preference, Option 5, Mr. Kelly thought the policy was acceptable but lacked a sentence that stated that if a jurisdiction chose not to follow the priorities in a project, it must explain that choice. He suggested the word "justification" rather than "findings." Mr. Rayor supported options 2, 3, or 4. He suggested that a policy similar to State policy IG1 might be interesting to explore. Mr. Meisner agreed with the statements of Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly. He thought Option 2 the ideal, Option 3 possibly acceptable if modified, Option 4 acceptable, and he shared the concerns expressed by others regarding Option 5. He said Option 2 was his first choice, and Option 4 his second. Mr. Pap8 found options 2, 3, and 4 acceptable. He thought Option 5 too wordy and overly detailed. Noting the reference to bringing streets up to urban standards in options 2 and 5, Mr. Pap8 observed that sometimes urban standards as defined today were not the best thing for a neighborhood. Mayor Torrey said the City's partners in the plan were concerned that the priorities in the proposed finance policy were intended to stop them from building street projects. He asked if the policy was intended to stop the construction of new capacity, such as that proposed in the West Eugene Parkway. He thought it important the council discuss the fact it must come to a consensus with its partners on TransPlan. He was unsure what occurred if there was no concurrence on the document. Mr. Meisner acknowledged the concern identified by Mayor Torrey, but said that compromise and consensus do not come from one council only. There was nothing in the policy that placed a legal limitation of the nature Mayor Torrey was describing on any jurisdiction. The policy merely established priorities that could be contravened with a set of findings or explanation, depending on the language used. The question, Mr. Meisner suggested, was whether compromise meant that the Eugene council must give up its position. Mayor Torrey questioned if the language used by Mr. Meisner, that the policy was not a limitation on another community or Eugene for that matter, could be included in the policy to address the concerns of the City's partners. Ms. Childs suggested that the council indicate its consensus with Mr. Meisner. Mayor Torrey determined that no councilor disagreed with the intent of the policy as expressed by Mr. Meisner. Mr. Kelly asked that the council's representatives indicate to the MPC that the two issues just addressed and the remaining issues on the agenda were not the total of the council's concerns. He said that the letter from Commissioner Peter Sorenson was not the opinion of one person, it was also the adopted position of a majority of the Eugene council. Ms. Childs said the MPC as a body would address the letter and the issue of financial constraint. Ms. Taylor said it appeared the majority of the council supported Option 2 or Option 4 as modified by Ms. Childs. Mr. Kelly reiterated his comments regarding the inclusion of justification text in Option 5 and determined several councilors shared his interest. Ms. Bettman reminded the MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 4 Work Session