Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Jerome, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the City could possibly be sued in Circuit <br />Court to accept the ECLA report if it did not already do so by December 31, 2009, as described in HB 3337. Ms. <br />Jerome further stated that there were no sanctions the City might be subject to under any such lawsuit. <br />Ms. Taylor advocated against rushing the ECLA process and believed it was important for the City to solicit and <br />collect reports and input from the minority interests related to the assessment. <br />Ms. Taylor asked if Mr. Clark's previously stated motion constituted a substitute motion or an amendment to Mr. <br />Brown's previously stated motion. Mr. Brown responded that it was an amendment. <br />Ms. Piercy believed that any timeline agreed upon by the council regarding the ECLA process would need to be <br />flexible. <br />Mr. Zelenka responded to comments previously made by Ms. Jerome indicating that the City could be subject to a <br />lawsuit if the provisions of HB 3337 were not met. Ms. Jerome clarified her earlier comments and noted that the <br />HB 3337 guidelines would allow the City to locally set and control a timeline for the completion of the next steps <br />of the ECLA process beyond December 31, 2009. <br />Mr. Zelenka noted he would not support the amendment to Mr. Brown's motion and believed that the City should <br />hold to the timeline included as Attachment C in the agenda item summary materials. He maintained it was too <br />early in the ECLA process to generate a timeline that would go beyond the end of 2009. <br />Mr. Clark reminded Mr. Zelenka that the staff timeline included as Attachment C did not include any specific <br />mention of the final adoption of the ECLA process. Ms. Jerome confirmed that the "Final Products" listed in that <br />timeline did not describe the final adoption of the ECLA process. <br />Mr. Clark commented he was not interested in stalling the adoption of the ECLA process. <br />Mr. Dedrick commented that staff had not spent a great deal of time on what might be done after the ECLA report <br />had been accepted because the true and actual land needs of the City had not yet been established. He further <br />commented that staff was getting closer to definitively determining the City's land needs which would in turn help <br />determine how the City would adopt the ECLA findings in the future. <br />Ms. Piercy wanted to make sure Mr. Clark's motion would not presume in its language that the City would be <br />required to incorporate an expansion of the ECLA process. Mr. Clark confirmed that it would not. <br />Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Clark's previously stated motion. The motion passed, 5:4 <br />(Mr. Brown, Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Ortiz voting in opposition). <br />Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Brown's previously stated motion as amended. The motion <br />passed, 6:2 (Ms. Taylor and Mr. Brown voting in opposition). <br />Mr. Brown, seconded by Ms. Taylor moved to direct the City Manager to engage one or more <br />independent, qualified people to review ECLA work to date, as well as comments from CAC <br />members and provide an assessment to the City Council. <br />Mr. Brown believed the concerns of the CAC members were serious enough to warrant further investigation and <br />hoped that any such investigation would be carried out sooner rather than later. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 28, 2009 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />