Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner did not think the motion as stated gave staff enough time to do the needed work. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to extend the time for the <br />item by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br />Mr. Pap~ recalled that the first Parks and Open Space Committee took a year to complete its <br />work, and said the effort contemplated would be a very accelerated process. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly spoke in defense of the motion, saying he did not want to foreclose options available to <br />the committee. H e preferred that the committee was formed promptly, met with staff to get a <br />backgrounding and a briefing from staff on the master planning process. After that, the committee <br />would be in better position to make a recommendation to the council. Nothing in his motion <br />precluded the committee from moving quickly with a November 2002 ballot measure, or required it <br />do so. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the motion. She did not necessarily support a November 2002 parks and <br />open space measure, questioning whether it was possible in terms of timing, but agreed with Mr. <br />Kelly that the motion did not constrain the committee. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey indicated he would vote to support the formation of the committee if there was a tie <br />vote. He questioned whether a November 2002 ballot measure was necessary. Mayor Torrey <br />believed that the council needed time to generate the support needed for a new bond. However, <br />he saw value to having the committee. The committee could hear from staff about the master <br />planning effort and share its concerns with staff. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not think the work of the new committee would take as long as the work of the <br />former committee, given that much of the information needed had been gathered already in other <br />efforts. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor thought the council needed to offer the voters money measures in a logical and <br />sensible order. He did not support the motion because he did not think that all the needs that <br />existed could be met at the same time. He said that his vote against the motion was not because <br />he was against "these nice things," but rather because he believed there was not enough money <br />and issues needed to be prioritized. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she would support the motion but thought the council should consider the <br />signals it was giving to the committee and staff in terms of when the recommendation was <br />wanted. She believed that the council needed to give staff more specific direction. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Johnson that the work of the committee would not offset the <br />cost of doing the master plan update. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Meisner and Mr. Rayor voting no. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked how many councilors believed that the motion directed the staff to prepare for <br />a November 2002 election. Mr. Kelly recommended that the staff discuss the issue with the <br />committee and poll it on its recommended date. Mr. Carlson determined that the council <br />understood that there was a possibility that there would be two different committees supported by <br />the Parks Division staff, one of which was a department advisory committee appointed by the <br />department. He said that staff may choose not to have the department advisory committee. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2002 Page 9 <br /> State of the City <br /> <br /> <br />