Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Zelenka said he would take it as a friendly amendment to say that the work session would occur in October. Councilor Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add (d) under (2) of the motion that would state that the council would consider and discuss the revised ordinance language at the first work session in October. The maker and the second accepted the friendly amend- ment. Councilor Solomon wished to honor Councilor Poling’s request that the council not take action at the present meeting. She said in hearing the present discussion it was clear that the council was moving toward eminent domain proceedings. She indicated she would not support the motion. Councilor Clark said he had supported the motion until it became more time specific. He indicated that out of respect for Councilor Poling he would also refrain from supporting it. He wanted to know the amount of money spent by the current owners of the properties trying to negotiate the requirements the City placed on them as they tried to develop the properties, which the City indicated they could do. Councilor Clark asserted that the motion spoke from the City’s point of view, which was that the land was zoned R-1, residential. He said the Comprehensive Plan indicated that the land was intended for housing. He felt they were analyzing the values of the land for housing that low, medium, and high density would allow. He averred that this would give the City accurate information that would allow it to negotiate in good faith and with willing sellers. Mayor Piercy understood Councilor Poling’s position to be that he opposed moving the ordinance itself forward. She believed the present motion would not do so. Councilor Pryor said the notion of setting a date certain to bring back an eminent domain vote gave him “pause” because he believed it would “short circuit” having the information to study and understand prior to moving into eminent domain. He asked Councilor Zelenka if he was proposing to have a date certain for an issue of condemnation to be brought to the council or was he still working on garnering all of the informa- tion. He said if the latter was true he could still support the motion. Councilor Zelenka stated his intent was to hold a work session to discuss ordinance language in advance of action on it. Councilor Pryor indicated his willingness to support the motion based on Councilor Zelenka’s response to his question. He requested a legal opinion of the allowability of the purchase within the specifics of what the Parks and Open Space Bond language said the bond would and would not pay for. He also wished to know what would happen if it was found to be allowable and it went to court and was then overturned. He wanted to know what the personal liability of the councilors was in that situation. He understood, at this point, that the councilors could be held personally liable for “paying the money back.” Councilor Taylor was not satisfied with saying the council would discuss the language in October. She averred that the council should have passed the ordinance already. She felt that Councilor Bettman’s friendly amendment included a deadline for action. She expressed concern that without a deadline the action could be deferred “forever.” Councilor Bettman clarified that her intent was to have the revised ordinance language for review at a work session in October. She said it would give time to conduct due diligence work that “others” thought had not been done or “for some reason” was thought to be needed prior to taking action on the ordinance. She MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 9, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting