Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Papé offered a friendly amendment, accepted by the maker of the motion, to add to the motion that staff <br />come back within three months with a list of the new projects in the Capital Improvement Program funded <br />with money that could have been used for operations, preservation, and maintenance. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said if staff was dependent on a motion, one should have been provided to the council. The <br />motion on the table essentially directed staff to return with options to raise new taxes. She did not support <br />the motion. <br /> <br />In regard to the issue of prioritization, Ms. Bettman said the council had voted two or three times on motions <br />directing the actions of the Transportation Planning Committee, the staff committee charged with the tasks <br />of recommending projects to the Metropolitan Policy Committee. Neither council itself nor the Transporta- <br />tion Planning Committee had been able to demonstrate the discipline needed to prioritize maintenance and <br />preservation above new projects, as demonstrated by the council’s support for the Chad Drive extension and <br />Monroe Street bicycle project. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said with due respect, she believed that Ms. Bettman had mischaracterized the discussion <br />about Chad Drive, as the dollars allocated to the project were not necessarily available to the City for <br />reallocation for other purposes. She did not consider that to be a lack of prioritization, pointing out the <br />project was listed in the Capital Improvement Program and staff was simply securing funding for City <br />projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor summarized the motion. <br /> <br />The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no; Mr. Poling did <br />not participate in the vote. <br /> <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION: Public Safety Task Force Update <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called the council’s attention to a summary distributed prior to the meeting in regard to the <br />work of the Public Safety Task Force. She and Mr. Kelly attended the meetings of the task force, which <br />included participation by Lane County and eight to ten other Lane County communities. The document, <br />entitled “Focus, Goals, and Outcomes,” described the desired focus, goals, and outcomes for additional <br />public safety funding to achieve a public safety system. Mayor Piercy briefly overviewed the document. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the task force had six meetings and would hold another on September 28. There was <br />ultimate agreement about the service recommendations. The upcoming meeting would focus on how to fund <br />the package. Only one of ten jurisdictions supported the use of the property tax, so other options included a <br />personal income tax and a sales tax. The task force would recommend to the Lane Board of County <br />Commissioners whether it should adopt the revenue source by ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy said she and Mr. Kelly were seeking input from the council with regard to what was <br />acceptable to it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not think that capital infrastructure expenditures belonged in the proposal. She said <br />staffing and services should be included, with no overlap of services already provided by the City. She <br />emphasized that City taxpayers should not be subsidizing rural services. Ms. Bettman did not support the <br />use of property taxes noting that any proposal selected by the Board of County Commissioners should go <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />