Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap~ reiterated Mr. Rayor's concern and raised concern over the speed with which the item <br />was being reconsidered. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she would oppose the motion. She said she objected to "springing a motion" on <br />the council when there had been no attempt to get public input or to have councilors discuss the <br />matter before the meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly urged the council to remember there were other items to discuss at the meeting. He <br />noted that the substantive discussion on the item could be held until December 9. He said he <br />would oppose the motion since no one had been notified before the meeting that the item would <br />be raised. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson acknowledged the desire of councilors to be made aware of motions before voting <br />on them but noted that there had been instances where she had been unaware of a motion before <br />it was made and had still made a decision based on the content of the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman commented that the situation was different from a councilor crafting a motion the day <br />before a meeting. She stressed that there had been plenty of opportunity to notify the rest of the <br />council. <br /> <br />City Manager Carlson said the reason for urgency was because of a required ten-day notice <br />before the discussion on December 9. He noted that a tabled motion could not be put on the <br />agenda since he had to wait for council direction to schedule the tabled motion. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting in <br /> opposition. <br /> <br />A. WORK SESSION: First Annual Stream Corridor Acquisition Progress Report <br /> <br />Therese Watch of the Public Works Department provided a PowerPoint presentation on the <br />progress of the Stream Corridor Acquisition Program. She outlined the council direction from the <br />previous year, the progress made by the program since that time, and a list of stream corridors <br />acquired. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding the Beverly property and what had happened <br />since the purchase offer, Ms. Watch said the City's appraised value and the Bevertys' perception of <br />the value of their property were far apart. The Bevertys were not willing to sell at the appraised <br />value and staff had been operating from a willing seller approach only. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding what the council could do to facilitate the <br />purchase of the Beverly property, City Manager Carlson noted that without a willing seller the only <br />thing that could be done was a condemnation ordinance. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 2002 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />