Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Ortiz supported the ordinance and hoped it would pass. She acknowledged the philosophical reasons some councilors had for not supporting it, but requested that the council not tinker with it at this point. She underscored that it had been vetted through a joint committee process. Councilor Bettman opposed the ordinance. She called it “community standards in name only.” She opined that the actual impact would be negligible. She disagreed that her opposition was philosophical in nature. She reiterated the reasons for her opposition. Councilor Taylor expressed appreciation for the work of the committee but thought the standards were “meaningless.” She opposed the whole Enterprise Zone. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. 7. ACTION: Resolution 4863 Approving the Parks, Recreation, and open Space Project and Priority Plan Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 4863 ap- proving the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Project and Priority Plan. Councilor Kelly thanked staff for being responsive to the public testimony and to council concerns that had been expressed. Councilor Pryor expressed appreciation for the enormous amount of effort that had been invested in the plan. He asked legal counsel if it was possible to allow people to provide input or appeal during the methodology phase of the growth allocation numbers. Mr. Lidz responded that the plan before the council and the methodology were separate but related documents. He likened them to two legs of the plan and one had to go first. He said there was nothing to indicate that the same numbers in the plan were required to be used in the methodology. He added that when the methodology was adopted, there would be a 60-day period for appeal. Councilor Pryor ascertained that the council could still be working on adapting and adjusting to make sure the numbers, as they came in, were accurately reflected in the allocations. Mr. Lidz added that the statutes provided for a relatively involved process for the methodology. He clarified that the statutes dictated that the plan could be amended any time, but the process was more involved if the amendment would lead to an increase in SDCs. He affirmed that the resolution before the council would not constrain future actions after the 60-day period. Councilor Bettman expressed surprise at Mr. Lidz’ assessment of the action. She had thought the plan had costs associated with all of the projects. Carolyn Weiss, Parks Planning Manager, acknowledged that the plan did contain numbers, including costs, growth allocation percentages, and timelines, within the tables. Councilor Bettman observed that the background material indicated the resolution was cost-neutral. Ms. Weiss replied that the plan was not cost-neutral. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 12 Regular Meeting