Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

the f,."II'OceSi;, Mr. Papt ttll:ther opi.ned that the Cnunty had not been disingenuous in this pn)Ces;)~ rather, it was Mkmpti:ng to do what was ht.:--:st for the enterprise zone. i\.1L Pryor voiced appreciation for !'v'1s. Ortiz's motkrn and noted his d~s.lre tbtt an a.greemz~nt het\vzx.'ll the t\VO cntities could ultimately he rcalized.. ;\1L Kelly ~!~.;ked Ivl",. (JJi:iz to assurc th;:;: C01.ltKil tlKtt the motion ~he pnt f~lrth was not broader t.b.l!1 the language stated, M.s. Oltiz assured M1'. Kelly that the lan.guage 8poke soh::!y 1oMs, Be{tr;''1iln'~; original. motion. and cxplaincd it was her persor!<1! preferen(.c that .'m agreement with the County ui.timatdy ,;vas f<:''ached through additional d!alogw;~> Mr. Keny din::.cted staff not to inkrpret .Ms. Ortiz's moti.l,n t'O be broader than ::;pecitled. Ms. Dettman stated fix the record. t.hat on l,ugust 2, H.'there wa:, no agreement with the Cou:nty and it d.echnes to uphold its original <lgreement with the City of Engene fl)make applic~!tion, the coun.d.1 witl. proc0~d to end the City's participation in th{~ enterprise Zl,nc. 1\'1s. Ortiz concurred with this ;;ts;)etmnent ofthe proceS:i:>. City Manag;,;~r l);;m:nis Taylor l;;tmmlented that a:i:>~uming no agreernent was reached. het\veen the two books, a In.eeting with the State director in. (~harge of the enterpris~) zone prograro would be scheduled to recon::;ider the designation; fb:rther, a diseu.ssiml of legal option..~ to ternrinak the enterprise zone would. tmsnc, basl.-xi on the. City's inability kl provide zone man<lgtlnent servlcl;:s, Ms. Bettman stated she 'Nould vote ag.ai:!ts.i l\h. Ortiz's motion a:'i the po",tpon~11:K'1li was unnecessarily long, She noted that the ci)mn:;:issionmeels on Tuesday July 26 and could discuss the issue at that tirne.Ms. Bcttman th;:;~n qu.estioned how :'itaLf would proceed if an application were to h.) re.edVi;~d prior to A:ugust 2. City Attorney Lid?: responded that it \.vould. not be processd aCl;:onling to the coundl's action on Monday, July 1 f-l; howl.cveL, h,;~ d1,bI.1D;!tcd that if th.;:;~ application were eventually process-ed, it would he suhject to the. State's standards, Ms. Dettman pointed tmt that it wai; due to I..<me County's n.cglige!Ki;) in prot<xting the iHt~fests of the community regarding the entel1:lrise zone that no standards currmt!y ~xisted. T\-1;:;. Taylor. sccoill:kd by M::;, Bt~ttn:mH, moved to amend the 111otit)n t{} change the respon.se date from A1,.,gust 2 tn July 26, The amendrnent faiJ.ed 2;5, with Ms.. Taylor ~md Ms. Bdtrnan voting yes, In :mppnrt of the motion to amend, T\-is. 'faylor stated tlwrc was no viable reu:wn to prolong the process tZ) August 2 as. the com:mission m(~ets on July 26. M;;tyor Pier<..~y ;:;:ommcnt cd that the council action of July 1 B reaff-imll;:d the original agreermmt for the Lane Boar-d of (:'tmnty Cormnissicm.ers; howeve., ~he ~.tated that ~;uch action. would not preclude additional dialogue. She voiced hope that an agreement between the two bodies ;~o!lld ultimately he .eached.. The motion pas.s~d 5:2, with Ms. Betlman and Ivk Taylo. voting no. B, \VORI\: SESSION: Railroad CnJssiug Quiet hmcs 'l':nrffic Engineer Tom Lars.en ~umrnari.zed thc mat<:~rial cont~dnCli in the Agenda Hern Summary, Hc cxplaiuCli that recent federalmle::;, effective June 24, 2005, estahlish a process to obtain a M1NUrES~~Eugene City Conn.d.l July 2{l, 2005 Page 2 Work Session .................................................................................................................._..._...._.._..._._.........................~.....