Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Johnson mentioned that he was thinking about using strategy 1.11 on page 187 as a way to <br />actively help get the Royal Node accomplished. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ expressed the concern that strategy 1.11 was not consistent with Growth Management <br />Policy 14. Ms. Taylor noted that the discussion was not about the long-term policies at this time. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that she was not in favor of any tax exemptions at all. She said that she would <br />be supporting Option 3. She asked what "incentives" meant in short-term strategy number 4. <br />Ms. Childs said that a work plan would be developed that would include <br />incentive/education/marketing programs and that the council would have the opportunity to <br />approve or disapprove that plan. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey entered the meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested that the council have a field trip to look at nodes or possible node sites. <br />Ms. Childs said that she would schedule such a trip. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to accept Option 3 with work <br /> to begin following the joint adopting officials work session. The motion <br /> passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor turned the meeting over to Mayor Torrey. <br /> <br />C. Work Session: Neighborhood Services Redesign <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson introduced Beth Bridges of the Planning and Development Department, who introduced the <br />agenda item, noting it had been previously discussed at a February 23 work session. She described the <br />following two items for discussion by the council: <br /> <br /> · An amendment to the boundary discussion of when borders would be redrawn. There was a <br /> proposal for a neighborhood-driven petition initiative method developed by councilors Kelly, <br /> Meisner, and staff. <br /> · To discuss the Neighborhood Association newsletter guidelines. Information about the existing <br /> guidelines, the governing body which determines whether or not those guidelines had been met, <br /> and the legal ramifications of changing that publisher role from the City to the Neighborhood <br /> Association were included in the agenda packets. <br />Councilors first discussed the amendment proposal. <br /> <br />In response to a questions from Mr. Fart, Ms. Bridges said that the petitioning group would notify the <br />existing neighborhood group of its intent. The existing group would have 45 days to reply and that <br />information would be available to people when they were asked to sign the petition. She said that when a <br />boundary was called into question, a committee would be formed consisting of a person from the <br />Neighborhood Association, someone from the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC), a petitioner, staff, and <br />the council if it chose to participate. That committee would review the petition and make the decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner explained that this proposal was created in order to provide an opportunity for citizens to raise <br />boundary issues on their own. He thanked staff for its help on the amendment. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 15, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />