Laserfiche WebLink
or one issue, and with a mechanism for continued simultaneous public <br /> involvement, such as proposed by the Friends of Eugene. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that he did think that this would work and be in sync with the other governmental <br />agencies. Ms. Childs noted that for any new testimony to be considered in the decision-making <br />process, the record would have to be reopened. Glenn Klein, City Attorney, said that it was <br />important for the council to clarify the intent of the motion in terms of public involvement. Mr. Kelly <br />said that his intent was that there be a mechanism for the public to continue to give input to the <br />discussions. He said that he did not intend to constitute a formal committee. Mr. Klein said that if <br />that was acceptable to the proposer and seconder of the motion, his suggestion was that a vote <br />be taken on the motion and that staff bring back a recommendation as to how that alternative <br />public involvement process could work. Mr. Meisner said that he would accept the change to the <br />motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson warned that if council was too prescriptive about the public involvement process, it <br />would begin a process of divergent paths from the other governmental agencies. She reiterated <br />that her objective was to have a process that concluded with a revised TransPlan adopted by all <br />the agencies. She said that she would support the motion and looked forward to Ms. Childs <br />coming back with suggestions as to how to have public input in a practical way. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson thought that probably all of the material that would be needed for findings had <br />already been collected. She thought that additional material would probably be information that <br />would help craft amendments or new approaches. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson wondered about how to interpret the part of the motion calling for multiple work <br />sessions. Mr. Lee said that he preferred that staff worked that out. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson suggested, while referring to page 13 of the memorandum, that the public record <br />remain open until March 2000. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~ made a friendly amendment to leave the public record open until <br /> March 2000. Mr. Meisner and Mr. Lee accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ clarified that the motion intended to keep the same timeline outlined in the <br />memorandum. All agreed that it did. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comment about not <br />making the process of public involvement too prescriptive. Ms. Childs said that staff would come <br />back with suggestions. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she thought that the record should just remain open throughout the process. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly told Ms. Nathanson that his intention about multiple work sessions was that council <br />would be able to have serious policy discussions about each of the clusters probably lasting an <br />hour or two, not thirty minutes. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed that he wanted the council to have comprehensive discussions and that he <br />did not want discussions to be limited by difficulty in scheduling. He noted that his goal was to <br />have a TransPlan that was adoptable and was the best for Springfield, Eugene, and LTD. He said <br />that if the best could not be agreed to by the other agencies, then he wanted the best TransPlan <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 5 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />