Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman did not think the council needed to come to a conclusion at this level. She thought the CCIGR <br />could take information and questions and discuss it further and make a recommendation to the council if it <br />needed further discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé pointed out that the boundary commission was the last one in the State. He believed it would be <br />brought up at the legislative level again. He suggested holding a work session on this item after the new <br />year. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz agreed the council needed a work session on the boundary commission. She related that her <br />constituents told her that they found it to be another layer of government that was cumbersome and possibly <br />not necessary. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed that there was some value in having the boundary commission as sometimes the role of <br />the commission was to be an independent third-party check on what could otherwise be some fairly <br />controversial moves. He asked the council to consider if it should strike the language and be silent on the <br />question of whether or not it should take a stand on the commission until after the work session. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought this was a good idea. She believed the boundary commission would come up again in <br />the legislative session. She was unconvinced that it was something that should remain in the legislative <br />document; if it was left there, the council would be obligated to fight for it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she had heard enough ambivalence around the table that it made sense to take it out and <br />schedule a work session for the beginning of the year. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to strike the language under number 4 “An- <br />nexation.” <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor asked if the council intended to change its position by eliminating the language with <br />regard to annexation. He recalled that there had been an argument in the last session between the City of <br />Beaverton and one of its important employers that led to a statewide discussion on annexation that was not <br />in the City of Eugene’s best interest. He suggested that the City of Eugene might want to maintain its <br />historic position with regard to the flexibility about the methods of annexation that was different from which <br />governmental body made the decision. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman understood the recommendation to be that City Manager Taylor wished to rewrite number 4. <br />She asked Planning staff if removing the language would put it in a tenuous situation. Kurt Yeiter, Principal <br />Planner for the Planning Division, said it would depend on the timing. He averred that if the council <br />discussion could be completed before legislation was introduced, it would not have a negative impact. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor stated that a work session could be scheduled for this discussion after the first of the <br />year, but another agenda topic would have to be moved. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy suggested that when making a motion to remove language, it be stated that the motion did not <br />indicate support or lack thereof. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to the motion that read, as follows: <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />