Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Zelenka said the Mayor’s Amazon Headwaters Acquisition Committee was in the process of completing <br />its work and he expected a draft report soon. He said the committee passed a motion that requested that the <br />Mayor and council review the Green and Beverly appraisals to ensure they were Yellow Book-compliant. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the City Council do a review of the <br />Green and Beverly property appraisals to ensure that they were Yellow Book-compliant and <br />they include a Desk and Field Review of the properties. <br /> <br />City Attorney Klein recommended that the City Council direct the City Manager to undertake the review. <br />Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Taylor accepted that as a friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he supported the motion as a committee member but expressed dismay that the item was <br />coming up at this time without notice to the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked the time involved. Mr. Zelenka estimated six to eight weeks. Ms. Bettman wanted to <br />seek multiple appraisals on the properties to collaborate the initial appraisal. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling found the introduction of the topic offensive without any notice and particularly in light of the <br />delay of the originally scheduled item. He was unsure if he would support the motion and suggested it was <br />typical of the way the issue had been addressed from the start. He asked that agendas be set and maintained. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor agreed on the need to have actual appraisals for the properties. If the motion moved the City <br />down the road toward that, he was fine. He asked if the committee had asked Mr. Zelenka to offer the <br />motion. Mr. Zelenka said yes. He noted that Mr. Clark was at the meeting where the item was discussed. <br />He did not think it was the first time the issue had been mentioned as the Mayor had raised it during items. <br />In addition, three councilors were on the committee. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor suggested the council, in process session, discuss how to handle such motions as he believed there <br />should be a process for vetting motions so councilors were not surprised at meetings, and so they had time to <br />get background information and get their questions answered as well as provide notice to the public. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark did not recall the committee recommending that the item go forward in advance of the final <br />recommendations it intended to forward. When he offered the body a motion on May 12 he had sent out <br />notice in advance of the motion to provide for discussion. He thought the motion had implications the <br />council needed to consider and considered it premature. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to table the motion. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. <br />Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark voting no. <br /> <br />City Manager Ruiz indicated the council would have to approve another appraisal. The result of the motion <br />would be an appraiser’s assessment of the existing appraisals. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that she would have offered a motion to table Item C due to some potential action the <br />Board of County Commissioners might take in regard to an appeal from Junction City. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that councilors had the ability to bring up a motion when ever they wished. She did not <br />think the motion represented a breech in process but rather the process to which all had agreed. Ms. Taylor <br />concurred. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 28, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />