05/13/1991 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Robinette offered his support for the motion and indicated that the Plan- ning Commission, whose job it is to advise the council on land use issues, has approved the proposal. Mayor Miller said that he believes Blue Water Boats has demonstrated the economic benefits that would be gained in the community from plant expansion. He noted that it appears that the vote would be 4:3, denying the request, but said that he believes that Councilor Rutan, if present, would vote in favor of the motion. He asked the council to delay final action on this issue until Mr. Rutan could be present. Responding to a request for process clarification, Tim Sercombe, City Attor- ney's Office, said that the council must take action on the ordinance within 30 days of the pubic hearing. If the motion is defeated, the ordinance would go back to MPC for dispute resolution. In order to formalize an ordinance denial, the council would need to adopt denial findings. If denial findings are made prior to MPC action and MPC fails to return with a different propos- al, the denial could stand. Mr. Gleason said that council ground rules have traditionally allowed an item to be held over at the request of a councilor. Also, any two councilors can request that an issue be postponed to the following meeting. Ms. Ehrman noted that Councilor Rutan did not request that this item be held over. The council policy which allows two councilors to request that an issue be held over should not apply in this case, because the councilors did not make such a request before the full council had shown its position on the issue. Ms. Bascom warned the council that voting to deny a request on land for which Springfield has jurisdiction would likely cause tension across the jurisdic- tions. Also, she believes that if Councilor Rutan had been aware that the proposal would be denied, he would have asked that the issue be held over. Mr. MacDonald acknowledged that some tension might be created by denying the request, but emphasized that Metro Plan boundaries are jointly agreed upon. Mr. Green moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to call the question. The motion carried 5:2; with councilors Green, Boles, Ehrman, MacDonald, and Nicholson in favor, and councilors Bascom and Robinette opposed. Roll call vote; lacking unanimous approval, the motion failed 5:2, with councilors Boles, Ehrman, Green, MacDonald, and Nicholson voting in favor, and councilors Bascom and Robinette voting opposed. Responding to a request for process clarification, Bill Gary, City Attorney's Office, indicated that to deny the motion means to deny each portion of the motion separately. Unless the vote is reversed, the council cannot vote on MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1991 Page 4