Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Poling said the original motion addressed the fact the City needed to remain in compliance with its <br />permit and new federal regulations. He favored having a discussion focused on the subject of the amend- <br />ment at some point in time, but did not want to tie today’s decision to that discussion. He did not support <br />the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said the stream corridor acquisition issue was nothing new, and in her mind the council was only <br />asking the manager to do what it wanted him to do before. She thought the program valuable for the <br />purpose of maintaining community water quality. She pointed out that previously, the funding had been in <br />place. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly clarified his amendment was not asking for the former steam corridor acquisition program to be <br />reinstated, but rather asking for a discussion of whether the program should be reinstated at a later time. He <br />agreed the issue was not tied to the agenda item but was raised because the council lacked a standing item <br />entitled Stormwater Issues. He said that a new discussion would enable councilors who had not participated <br />in the earlier discussion to receive the history of what occurred then. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon did not know why the council would want to have a discussion that did not encompass the <br />entire CIP. She did not oppose having a discussion about the acquisition program, but she did not like the <br />amendment because she believed it took the issue out of the context of the program and did not consider <br />other equally effective approaches. She recommended that the amendment be amended to include a full <br />discussion of those other approaches as she believed that she could then support it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opposed Ms. Solomon’s recommendation. She said that she was surprised to hear Ms. <br />Solomon mention the need to consider the entire program as it was her recollection that Ms. Solomon had <br />voted to reduce the program by $2 million. She did not think the council would support expanding the CIP. <br /> <br />The motion to the amendment passed, 6:1; Mr. Poling voting no. <br /> <br />The main motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Dennis M. Taylor <br />City Manager <br /> <br />(Recorded by Kimberly Young) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br />