Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

City Manager pro tem Jones explained that the chief executive officers from the three jurisdictions would meet prior to the JEO meeting to discuss process and outcomes based on feedback from their respective elected officials. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to remove from the table her motion direct- ing the City Manager to refrain from making any commitment that would jeopardize the City's ability to fund the acquisition of the Beverly and Green properties. Mr. Clark urged councilors not to remove the item from the table due to the shortness of time remaining in the work session unless there was time provided at the end of the meeting to consider the charter amendment already on the agenda. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to postpone until completion of Item B on the agenda. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in opposition and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting in favor. The mayor cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. The vote on the motion to remove from the table was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting in opposition. The mayor cast a vote in favor to the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Ortiz asked if Ms. Taylor's intent was to prevent the City Manager from making any decisions that would preclude the ability to purchase the Beverly and Green properties. Ms. Taylor confirmed that was the intent of her motion. Ms. Ortiz said it would be difficult for her to support the motion because it was too vague and virtually any action by the City Manager could be considered to affect the ability to purchase those properties. She would need more specificity about the funding sources before she could support the motion. City Manager pro tem Jones remarked that she was not certain what the motion was directing her to do, particularly in light of the fact that she was in negotiations for properties that had been specifically identified and approved by the voters as part of the parks bond measure. She said the funding sources that could potentially be affected by the motion included the General Fund, Facility Reserves, the Telecom Fund and other resources, and more specific direction was needed. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, called the question. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in opposition and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting in favor. The mayor cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Ortiz that the motion was too broadly stated and could affect too many other issues, such as the Santa Clara community park and other acquisitions from parks bond proceeds. He felt bringing the City to a standstill for this one issue was somewhat extreme. Mr. Pryor agreed that the motion was too vague and general to provide direction to the City Manager. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 7 Work Session