Laserfiche WebLink
the process. Mr. Papé further opined that the County had not been disingenuous in this process; <br /> <br />rather, it was attempting to do what was best for the enterprise zone. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor voiced appreciation for Ms. Ortiz’s motion and noted his desire that an agreement <br />between the two entities could ultimately be realized. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Ortiz to assure the council that the motion she put forth was not broader than <br />the language stated. Ms. Ortiz assured Mr. Kelly that the language spoke solely to Ms. Bettman’s <br />original motion and explained it was her personal preference that an agreement with the County <br />ultimately was reached through additional dialogue. Mr. Kelly directed staff not to interpret Ms. <br /> <br />Ortiz’s motion to be broader than specified. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman restated the intent of the motion for the record that on August 2, if there was no <br />agreement with the County and it declines to uphold its original agreement with the City of <br />Eugene to make application, the manager will proceed to end the City’s participation in the <br />enterprise zone. Ms. Ortiz concurred with this assessment of the process. City Manager Dennis <br />Taylor commented that assuming no agreement was reached between the two bodies, a meeting <br />with the State director in charge of the enterprise zone program would be scheduled to reconsider <br />the designation; further, a discussion of legal options to terminate the enterprise zone would <br />ensue, based on the City’s inability to provide zone management services. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated she would vote against Ms. Ortiz’s motion as the postponement was <br />unnecessarily long. She noted that the commission meets on Tuesday July 26 and could discuss <br />the issue at that time. Ms. Bettman then questioned how staff would proceed if an application <br />were to be received prior to August 2. City Attorney Lidz responded that it would not be <br />processed according to the council’s action on Monday, July 18; however, he elaborated that if <br />the application were eventually processed, it would be subject to the State’s standards. Ms. <br />Bettman pointed out that it was due to Lane County’s negligence in protecting the interests of the <br />community regarding the enterprise zone that no standards currently existed. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to change the <br />response date from August 2 to July 26. The amendment failed 2:5, with Ms. <br />Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. <br /> <br />In support of the motion to amend, Ms. Taylor stated there was no viable reason to prolong the <br />process to August 2 as the commission meets on July 26. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy commented that the council action of July 18 reaffirmed the original agreement for <br />the Lane Board of County Commissioners; however, she stated that such action would not <br />preclude additional dialogue. She voiced hope that an agreement between the two bodies could <br />ultimately be reached. <br /> <br />The motion passed 5:2, with Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br /> <br />B. WORK SESSION: Railroad Crossing Quiet Zones <br /> <br />Traffic Engineer Tom Larsen summarized the material contained in the Agenda Item Summary. <br />He explained that recent federal rules, effective June 24, 2005, establish a process to obtain a <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 20, 2005 Page 2 <br /> <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />