Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

using the named guiding principles referred to in the report accepted by the City Council on August 9, 2004. Mayor Torrey called for discussion on the amendment to the motion. Ms. Bettman reiterated that councilors interpreted the motion differently and she wanted to see the process, timeline, and magnitude of the changes being considered before amendments to the code were proposed. Mr. Kelly was uncomfortable in accepting the staff-proposed motion because of the confusion it had caused. He reiterated his early comments about staff's ability to move forward with the minor code amendments. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the item to the council meeting of January 5, 2005. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Ms. Taylor indicated she could not support the amended motion because of the confusion about its intent. Mr. Kelly believed that if the council passed the staff-proposed motion, it would only increase the level of distrust between staff and the council. Ms. Bettman said it was likely the motion would pass on a narrow majority. She said the council was managing some very important issues, such as revising the Land Use Code and reconsideration of the transportation system maintenance fee, on expedited, 5:3 votes. The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman vot- ing no. The motion as amended passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Pap6 was comfortable leaving the issue up to staff. He encouraged councilors wishing to learn more about the process to contact staff for more information. In response to Mr. Pap6's comment, Mr. Kelly said he "just tried." He had tried in the meeting to get a straight answer from staff about the scope of the code review, and he could not. He asked what planning principles would be applied; he could not get a straight answer. No one was telling him what he was asking. He questioned whether the council was going to govern in a vacuum, or if it was going to be able to talk together. He termed the process dysfunctional. Ms. Bettman said it was a functional process for a council majority but dysfunctional for the community. Speaking to Mr. Pap6's comment, she said she could certainly get a report on what the staff would do but would have no influence on the process. When she gave the City Manager feedback, it "pretty much falls on deaf ears." She had no influence on City processes except through a vote on the council. She said in her opinion, what Mr. Pap6 was proposing did not work. Mayor Torrey said that the comments made by Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly were a tremendous disservice to the administrators of the City. They paid attention to what each councilor said, and it was his opinion that the council president had a substantial influence on what happened in the City's administrative MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 7 Work Session