Laserfiche WebLink
in the present. He thought they should reexamine how the street assessments were allocated in the present. <br />He was not certain how that discussion would affect the road projects planned for the Crest Drive and <br />Elmira Road areas. He averred that it was a difficult burden for residents along the street to bear. He <br />echoed Councilor Clark, declaring that he would not want to see someone lose their home over the <br />assessments. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy commended the testimony, stating that everyone had spoken very eloquently. She thanked <br />them for the “high quality conversation” they had provided. She called for a seven-minute break at 9:13 <br />p.m. <br /> <br />2. CONSENT CALENDAR <br /> <br />A. Approval of City Council Minutes <br /> <br /> - January 27, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br /> - February 9, 2009, City Council Meeting <br /> - February 17, 2009, City Council Meeting <br /> - February 23, 2009, Work Session <br /> - February 25, 2009, Executive Session <br /> - March 2, 2009, Executive Session <br /> - March 2, 2009, Regular Session <br /> - March 3, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br /> B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda <br /> C. Approval of Neighborhood Matching Grants <br /> D. Resolution 4969 Extending the Time for Conveyance of Property Concerning the Multiple- <br />th <br />Unit Property Tax Exemption for Property Located at 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street, <br />Eugene, Oregon and amending Resolution No. 4966 <br /> E. Adoption of Resolution 4968 Supporting Application for State of Oregon parks and <br />Recreation Department Local Government Grant Matching Funds for Parks <br /> F. Initiation of Infill Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting Code Amendments <br /> G. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of February 18, 2009 <br /> H. Interim Appointment to the Human Rights Commission <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy stated that the majority of the Consent Calendar had been passed during the preceding Work <br />Session. She noted that Items C, E, and F had been deferred. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka thought the projects that had been submitted for Neighborhood Matching Grants were <br />worthy but a couple of them seemed like they were school projects, as opposed to neighborhood projects. <br />He wondered what the criteria was, noting that all of the projects had been proposed by neighborhood <br />groups. <br /> <br />Cindy Clarke, with the Neighborhood Services Division of the Planning and Development Department <br />(PDD), stated that the funds to be allocated for projects on school grounds was consistent with Resolution <br />No. 4632, established in the year 2000. She stated that the resolution specifically identified school site <br />councils as eligible applicants. She related that the grants had funded ten school projects since then. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark noted that one project had been the restoration of Spring Creek in Santa Clara, a project <br />initiated by the Santa Clara Community Organization and on e that had been featured in the Register Guard. <br />He related that the money was going predominantly toward the trees and native plants for the children and <br />the community members to plant, as well as the educational process around it. He considered it to be a <br />fantastic effort. <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 10 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />