Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion for an <br /> earlier effective date of July 1, 2001. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson pointed out the City would have not budget authority for the new employees called for <br />until July 1, and the staff would not be trained to implement the new code, so the September 1 <br />date was chosen as most practical. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said there were other issues related to the effective date, such as the need for public <br />and developer education about the new code. He asked the manager what drove the time line, <br />and if the staffing need could be addressed by a contingency request to move up the hiring of new <br />employees. Mr. Johnson responded that staff could make a Continency Fund budget request <br />because it had the information about the dollars required. If that occurred now, it might be <br />possible to implement the code before September. Regarding public education, Ms. Childs said <br />that staff would need two to three months to get the word out, but that could occur before <br />September 1 if the staffing and budget issues were addressed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested as a friendly amendment modifying the date to August 1. Ms. Bettman <br />indicated acceptance of the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that, with regard to Measure 7, he was persuaded by the attorney's statement in <br />the memorandum included in the packet entitled LUCU/Dual Code Option/Revised Effective Date <br />that staff could bring back options for lessening the Measure 7 risk at the time of implementation. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson noted that the difference in time between the initial and amended motion was only <br />one month; she pointed out the construction season in Eugene was becoming more of a year- <br />round thing. Most of the projects for the upcoming summer would have already been approved <br />and permitted. She did not think the amendment would change much with regard to the <br />upcoming construction season, but she concurred with the overall objective of catching as much <br />development as possible with the new code. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Ms. Childs did not think accelerating the effective date <br />would negatively affect the public education effort or the hiring process. The education <br />component would be overseen by existing staff. <br />Ms. Bettman said that once people knew the new code would be in place, they would begin to <br />plan for it. She said the sooner the code was in place, the better. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion because he wanted to implement the code as soon <br />as possible, but found it ironic that the council was discussing a delay of a month when it had <br />delayed adoption of the new code for years. <br /> <br /> The amended motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting no. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 1:14 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 2001 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />