Laserfiche WebLink
2. CONSENT CALENDAR <br /> <br /> A. Approval of City Council Minutes <br /> - June 16, 2004, Work Session <br /> - June 22, 2004, Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br /> - June 23, 2004, Work Session <br /> - June 28, 2004, Work Session <br /> - July 12, 2004, Work Session <br /> <br /> B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda <br /> <br /> C. Adoption of Resolution 4800 Authorizing the Institution of Proceedings in Eminent <br /> Domain for the Acquisition of Property Interests for Improvements to the Transporta- <br /> tion Infrastructure in the Vicinity of the new Federal Courthouse <br /> <br />The Consent Calendar was approved during the earlier work session, with the exception of Item 2C. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman pulled Item 2C as she had questions regarding it. She noted that staff had answered one <br />question during the break and she understood that the proposed project would help to extend 6th Avenue. <br />She asked to what extent systems development charges (SDCs) would be used in financing the improve- <br />ments. Michelle Cahill, Principal Civil Engineer for the Public Works Department, responded that there had <br />been no discussion regarding the use of assessments to help finance the projects because it was slated to be <br />funded by $ t .6 million that Lane County agreed to give the City as its share of the federal road money. She <br />felt there could be an SDC component to the project, but at this point the forthcoming federal money and the <br />local share that had been identified would cover the improvements. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman registered her opposition to the resolution. She opposed the 6th Avenue extension, saying <br />it would multiply safety issues for pedestrians and increase barriers to the connection of the downtown area <br />to the river. She reiterated that the project should be funded by SDCs and, as it was a State road issue, the <br />Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) should help to pay. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Pap~, Ms. Cahill said the cost of the project included land <br />acquisition and staff had an estimate on the land value. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor said she would oppose the project. She echoed Councilor Bettman's concerns regarding <br />the barrier a 6th Avenue extension would create. She also had qualms about the funding. She wished to <br />remind everyone that federal money was still taxpayer money. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly agreed with Councilor Bettman that the County Road Fund money could be used for <br />preservation projects. He urged staff to continue to look into utilizing SDCs for local matches. He said he <br />would support the motion. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey acknowledged there would not be a tie but registered his support for the motion nonetheless. <br />He said the Government Services Administration (GSA) expected the City to proceed with this. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote; the motion to adopt Resolution 4800, authorizing the institution of proceed- <br /> ings in eminent domain for the acquisition of property interests (Map 17-03-31-14 lot 200; <br /> Map 17-03-32-22 lots t tee, 1300, 1400; Map 17-03-32-23 lots tee, 200, 300, 500, 600, <br /> <br /> <br />