Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly agreed that the project was a partnership, but he believed Eugene had a serious stake in <br />transit in the community. He thought significant changes could mean the project might become <br />something not envisioned by the council or commission. He indicated agreement with Mr. Klein's <br />statement about the commission's ability to seek direction from the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated acceptance of a friendly amendment by Mr. Kelly to delete the phrase "and <br />approval by the Eugene City Council" and to change "review by the Planning Commission" to <br />"approval by the Planning Commission." <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the council was considering the amendment because it was being asked to <br />commit a large amount of resources to a plan that was not complete. The amendment gave the <br />City authority to oversee the plan as it unfolded and changed over time. She reminded the council <br />that it passed a motion that the IGA would preserve the City's fundamental authority over the <br />project in the city limits. She was trying to reflect that agreement in the amendments. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said it appeared Ms. Bettman was trying to turn the resolution into general policies for <br />BRT in Eugene, but the resolution was only specific to the downtown-east-University section, <br />which was fairly well defined. However, he would support the amendment because there would <br />be future segments and future IGAs. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by <br /> replacing Section 2, Paragraph 3(a) of Resolution 4670 with the following: <br /> "Costs distribution, including a requirement that the City receive <br /> reimbursement for technical consulting and other services provided by City <br /> staff. A plan showing how all City costs would be funded would be brought <br /> back to the City Council. The plan will delineate which costs can be charged <br /> back to the project, which costs will be absorbed by the City, and how the <br /> City Manager suggests to fund the balance." <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman spoke in support of her amendment, saying it was her intent that the staff time spent <br />on the project was accounted for and, if it could not be paid for with existing resources, that a <br />source of funding for the cost of implementing the plan be identified. She wanted to know what <br />the City was committing to the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor opposed the amendment. He said that he had a difficult time with the concept of <br />capturing "all" the costs. He thought the funding plan should be an internal staff issue. He also <br />thought the motion implied that LTD would not be a responsible partner. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Rayor. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed that the City had both responsibilities to and benefits from the project, and he <br />did not object to some cost-sharing. He did not want to require that the City receive <br />reimbursement. He could not support the amendment unless the work "requirement" was <br />changed to "opportunities" as it was in the initial resolution. Ms. Bettman accepted the suggestion <br />as a friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey opposed the amendment, saying the City needed to develop stronger relationships <br />with its partners. He said the City Council often wondered why its partners frequently told it to <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />