My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 10/17/01 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2001
>
CC Minutes - 10/17/01 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:32:02 AM
Creation date
8/1/2005 1:53:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
County could be consulted in as to the process. Mr. Johnson recommended that the amendment <br />be withdrawn, as a separate motion to address this component would be put forth by Ms. <br />Bettman. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor, with concurrence with Mr. Pap~, withdrew the amendment to the motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman moved to amend the motion, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to direct <br /> the City Manager to prepare a resolution, for review and approval by the City <br /> Council, stipulating that the motion's funding mechanisms would be put forth <br /> to the voters via a ballot measure. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly questioned the concept of a resolution as there needed to be an educational <br />component prior to the campaign. Mr. Johnson cautioned that if a resolution was approved, a <br />restriction would be imposed as to what could or could not be brought forth to the voters with <br />regard to education. Therefore, he recommended that a resolution not be passed until after the <br />educational program was completed. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner stated he would not support the amendment at this time as it was premature. He <br />explained that the motion before the council was to direct staff to develop a plan, timeline, and <br />policy choices. Mr. Meisner stressed that he was not prepared to vote on a particular plan at this <br />time. Mr. Rayor concurred. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she was unwilling to do additional research and give permanence and <br />momentum to a TUF without being assured it would ultimately be put forth to the voters. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Johnson confirmed that putting forth the <br />recommendation to the voters, by ballot, could be a policy choice. <br /> <br /> The amendment failed, 6:2; Councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in support. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if the wording change in Part A of the motion from "transportation system" <br />to "transportation OM&P" funding need would preclude the City Manager from bringing back <br />suggestions for council consideration for funding needs related to sidewalk completion, street <br />lights, improvements facilitating nodal development, and traffic calming. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson confirmed that he would take a broad view of OM&P as the operation of the entire <br />street system and that staff would be bringing back options such as those mentioned. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ stated he was hopeful that through an educational program, other options could arise. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to direct that the Mayor and <br /> Council President, joined by the Mayor and Council President from the City of <br /> Springfield, request a meeting with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Lane <br /> County Board of Commissioners to discuss the distribution of County road <br /> funds to cities within the County and use of a gas tax and transportation <br /> utility fees within the metro area. The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />B. Other Business <br /> <br />MINUTES- Eugene City Council Work Session October 17, 2001 Page 7 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.