Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

The motion to amend failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. The main motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Piercy remarked that the issue of changes in household composition had been raised in several presentations at the Moving Forward Together conference currently underway. B. WORK SESSION: Selection of Community Advisory Team (CAT) Members for EWEB Riverfront Master Planning Process Mr. Ruiz introduced Nan Laurence, of the Planning and Development Department, to respond to questions from the council on the appointment of advisory team members. Mr. Pryor asked if councilors had responded to the straw poll on candidates. Ms. Laurence said she had not received any responses yet. Mr. Pryor suggested that councilors submit their straw polls by the end of the week and Ms. Laurence could tally the results in order for Mr. Pryor to put forward four names at the June 16 meeting. He said the council could discuss the qualities it was seeking in candidates for the remainder of the work session, but he hoped for a consensus on individuals to be appointed. Ms. Laurence remarked that EWEB hoped to hold the first meeting of the CAT on June 19. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor’s suggestion to take more time and make a decision on selection of candidates on June 16. He said it was unfortunate that the council would not go through its regular process of interviewing candidates for appointment to boards and commissions as the riverfront master planning process was critical. Ms. Solomon also concurred with the suggestion to postpone a decision on appointments until June 16. Ms. Taylor stated that she had reviewed the list and was prepared to indicate her preference for four candidates. Ms. Bettman said she did not object to a straw poll. Her interest in selecting four names from the pool of applicants was to achieve balance on the CAT as there were few applicants who had a neighborhood perspective or reflected broader community interests beyond an industry perspective. Ms. Ortiz thanked everyone who had applied for appointment to the CAT. She was impressed by the caliber of applicants who were interested in EWEB’s planning process and willing to volunteer on behalf of the City. She agreed that there should be balance on the CAT, but observed those who were interested were the most likely to pay attention to opportunities to participate. She asked how the appointments were advertised. Ms. Laurence said the City did not send emails soliciting applicants, but did use a number of other means to spread the word in the community, including posting notices on the website and on buses. Mr. Zelenka also thanked those who applied. He said the nature of the project was to discuss the property’s development potential and that naturally skewed applications toward development interests. He agreed with the need to try to achieve some type of balance in CAT membership. Mr. Clark said he had reviewed the applications and was impressed by the level of skills available to the council. He said the final project decision would be made by the council, which represented a balance of community views, but MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 6 Work Session