CC MInutes - 12/11/00 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Nathanson suggested, to general consensus, changing the first line in Section 2 of the document to "The City has strongly supported the Oregon Transportation Plan..." Moving on, Councilor Kelly noted that there was no language regarding the Oregon Livability Initiative in the current legislative document. He expressed a desire to retain some of the policies from the Initiative that still had merit. He cited expansion of the Transportation Growth Management program and potential financial incentives for infill development as examples. He suggested, to general consensus, that staff re-examine those policies. Councilor Taylor thanked Ms. Hamlen for getting the information to the councilors that were in Boston so that they would be informed for the current meeting. She expressed her appreciation that she had a better chance to review the document than she had had in the past. Councilor Taylor raised concern over language in the document regarding strengthening the City's ability to levy an admissions tax. She commented that there had been no agreement that an admissions tax was desired. In response to a question from Councilor Taylor regarding why the City was opposing a certification for firefighters, Ms. Hamlen said that it was a local control issue since the City already had its own certification standards for firefighters. Mayor Torrey said that legislation regarding an admissions tax was necessary because, should the City choose to have one, it needed the ability to levy it. Councilor Meisner expressed his appreciation for the staff work involved in the document. He also expressed his pleasure in being able to discuss the items in the document more than had been done in previous years. He said that the broad policies of the document reflected the council's discussions. Councilor Meisner raised a concern with setting priorities for the document at the current time. He noted that the CClGR had not yet met with the legislative delegation and went on to say that the Legislature was only just organizing for the new session. He raised a concern with "locking in priorities" when legislative direction could change the need for those priorities in the first day of the session. He suggested adopting the document as a general conceptual and policy direction document and allow priorities to develop as the session progressed. Councilor Pap8 supported the document. He said that he respected Councilor Meisner's comments but stressed the need for setting some priorities. He cited high-speed rail as a priority, since Eugene would be the southern terminus of any high speed rail that was developed. Councilor Rayor referred the council to the contracting section of the document. He said that he had numerous conversations with the Public Works Department regarding how to word the section. He asserted that the statement "For these services local government would not be allowed to consider price of a proposal until after a consultant was selected" was incorrect. Councilor Rayor said that price was always present as a secondary criterion. He raised concern with having conflicting information in the document. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 9 Regular Meeting