CC MInutes - 02/17/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson asked if the council could amend the Capital Improvement Program in the future if it choose to make changes to the sidewalk program, such as by adopting the triage approach. Ms. Andersen recommended that staff provide the council with an estimates of the costs of projects fitting the triage definition; those projects were primarily assessable. The council could reconcile the capital budget process and Capital Improvement Program in May. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to place the sidewalk program on hold except for those locations where staff review or public input clearly identifies a high-priority sidewalk need that should be addressed. Staff will proceed with a limited program based on the highest priorities and a high benefit-to-cost analysis. Mr. Pap~ asked if the council could reprogram additional funds for the sidewalk at this point. Mr. Torrey said that the Budget Committee would be considering the Capital Improvement Program the following week, and if Mr. Pap~ could get the votes, funds could be reprogrammed. Mr. Johnson concurred. Ms. Andersen added that the funds were actually authorized through the capital budget. Responding to a question from Mr. Torrey, Ms. Andersen indicated that the only moveable money available for reprogramming was in the Street and Alley Overlay Program, about $500,000 or half of what was normally available. She did not recommend that the City build new sidewalks in lieu of maintaining existing streets with such limited funding. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Andersen said that the $300,000 budgeted for parking lot construction at the airport were Airport Funds and could not be used for nonairport needs. Ms. Andersen noted that staff was hoping to be able to include intersection/sidewalk ramps in the systems development charge (SDC) as a legitimate, SDC-eligible cost. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0, Mr. Farr having left the meeting. D.Council Goals Process: Environmental Scan Jan Bohman, City Manager's Office, introduced the item and Jim Carlson and Clare Van Bloem of the Lane Council of Governments, who provided a slide presentation on trends in Eugene's population, employment, housing, income, racial, and crime demographics. Mr. Kelly regretted that the nation was at the end of a census cycle and more current data was not available. Mr. Kelly asked if data was available on employed individual income. Mr. Carlson said that payroll data was available from the State for various industry classifications. Mr. Kelly requested information regarding the average full-time worker income in Eugene. Mr. Carlson indicated LC©G could try to provide that information, adding that income in general was a very complex topic because of transfer payments, interest income, investment earnings, etc. Mr. Kelly indicated his focus was on income from employment. Ms. Nathanson noted her increasing concern regarding under reported and nonreported income and her interest in further discussion of the topic. Mr. Johnson suggested there would be an opportunity for that discussion at a later meeting. Ms. Nathanson requested information comparing the ratio of University of Oregon students, staff, and faculty to the Eugene population as a whole for the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 7 11:30 a.m.