CC Minutes - 11/28/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

was informed. He was not inclined to make changes, recognizing if one thing was pushed up, something else would need to be pushed down, and he was not included to push anything down that staff had set as a priority because staff priorities were reasonable at this point. Mr. Clark said although he was not fully versed on why staff had prioritized the work program as it had, he assumed staff knew what they were talking about. He asked Ms. Bettman what she would identify as a lower priority as a trade-off to elevate her suggestion. Ms. Bettman asked if other communities had a rotating code that was constantly being amended. The City had undertaken a huge process with the Land Use Code Update, had processed hundreds of code amendments since then, and was planning a process to continuously update the code. She said it was not necessary. There was room in the Planning Division to pursue clean water. Ms. Solomon, concurring with Mr. Clark, said in order to elevate the clean water elements, something else would need to be lowered in priority and she was not willing to do so today without further discussion. The proposed motion circumvented the process of discussion and transparency. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Ze- lenka voting in favor and Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy cast a vote of opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Bettman said she would not support the Planning Division work program because it did not reflect her priorities based on her constituents priorities. She strenuously objected to adopting council policy reversal via the work program, noting it was PDD that put the changes into the work program. The motion passed, 6:2, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. B. WORK SESSION: SEQUENCING OF FINANCIAL MEASURES TO PRESENT TO VOTERS Mr. Zelenka said he was worried about the May 2008 levy vote being too early, which meant pushing the levy out to November 2008. This would put the levy and the City Hall vote on the same ballot and he was opposed to this scenario. Mr. Zelenka disconnected from the telephone connection. Central Services Executive Director Jim Carlson provided the staff report. The purpose of the agenda item was to have a high level discussion about items to be placed on the ballot over the next several years, especially in 2008. There were two property tax measures proposed to go before voters during 2008: ? Property tax levy (could be General Obligation [G.O.] Bond or capital local option levy) for trans- portation system capital preservation projects in May 2008. This item was scheduled for council discussion on December 10, 2007, with follow-up discussion on January 14, 2008, and council ac- tion on February 11, 2008. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 9 Work Session