Item 4A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly believed that there was some value in having the boundary commission as sometimes the role of the commission was to be an independent third-party check on what could otherwise be some fairly controversial moves. He asked the council to consider if it should strike the language and be silent on the question of whether or not it should take a stand on the commission until after the work session. Ms. Taylor thought this was a good idea. She believed the boundary commission would come up again in the legislative session. She was unconvinced that it was something that should remain in the legislative document; if it was left there, the council would be obligated to fight for it. Ms. Bettman said she had heard enough ambivalence around the table that it made sense to take it out and schedule a work session for the beginning of the year. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to strike the language under number 4 “An- nexation.” City Manager Taylor asked if the council intended to change its position by eliminating the language with regard to annexation. He recalled that there had been an argument in the last session between the City of Beaverton and one of its important employers that led to a statewide discussion on annexation that was not in the City of Eugene’s best interest. He suggested that the City of Eugene might want to maintain its historic position with regard to the flexibility about the methods of annexation that was different from which governmental body made the decision. Ms. Bettman understood the recommendation to be that City Manager Taylor wished to rewrite number 4. She asked Planning staff if removing the language would put it in a tenuous situation. Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner for the Planning Division, said it would depend on the timing. He averred that if the council discussion could be completed before legislation was introduced, it would not have a negative impact. City Manager Taylor stated that a work session could be scheduled for this discussion after the first of the year, but another agenda topic would have to be moved. Mayor Piercy suggested that when making a motion to remove language, it be stated that the motion did not indicate support or lack thereof. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to the motion that read, as follows: “Rewrite section 4 on page 44 to remove references to the Lane County Local Govern- ment Boundary Commission pending a City Council work session after the first of the year.” Ms. Bettman declined to accept the friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to amend section 4, as follows: “Rewrite section 4 on page 44 to remove references to the Lane County Local Govern- ment Boundary Commission pending a City Council work session after the first of the year.” In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Kelly assured him that the word ‘pending’ would not delay the document itself. Ms. Bettman believed annexation issues and the boundary commission were intertwined and so should be discussed at the same time. She opposed the amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 8 Work Session