Laserfiche WebLink
distinguish between bad business and good because of an economic downturn and blaming bad <br />business on the City. She said the timing was not appropriate for the survey and added that it <br />was fiscally irresponsible. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. <br /> <br />Noting that he was not in a position to do so himself, Mayor Torrey urged a motion to reconsider <br />the transportation utility fee vote and further urged that, if the motion to reconsider were passed, <br />that there be a motion to table until December 1, to be able to discuss the issue again after both <br />Lane County and the City of Springfield had also discussed the issue. He raised concern over the <br />council divorcing itself from an option that could be potentially available at that time. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to reconsider the issue of the <br /> transportation utility fee. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding whether the process of reconsideration <br />would perpetuate the actual language that was voted on previously, City Attorney Jerry Lidz said <br />that it would and added the vote that did not pass on Monday was a vote to proceed with the <br />second reading of the motion by council bill number only. He said a vote to reconsider would take <br />the council back to a vote to proceed with the second reading. He said the council did not need to <br />proceed with the second reading of the motion if it did not want to discuss the issue that day, but <br />noted that if the council actually wanted to discuss the merits of the issue then it would be <br />appropriate for the council to unanimously vote to proceed with the second reading and then have <br />a discussion on the merits of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that she had made an amendment to the ordinance that failed and raised <br />concern that if there was a vote to reconsider then the next step would be to vote the ordinance <br />up or down as opposed to having an opportunity to introduce or reconsider other amendments. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz said amendments could be considered. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor raised concern that reconsidering the motion would delay consideration of alternative <br />solutions. She noted that the ordinance could be considered again at a future date. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Fart, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting in <br /> opposition. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to table the issue. The motion <br /> passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 14, 2002 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />