Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

City Manager Taylor noted that the project list would be considered by the council in a work session in two weeks. Councilor Bettman opposed the motion as preempting a future council discussion. Councilor Poling said he offered the amendment in an attempt to avoid litigation and to respond to those in the community who did not think the council should adopt the plan without a project list. He thought the project list should be part of the plan. Mr. Lidz noted that the project list was not before the council and he was unclear as to the intent of the motion. Was it to adopt a project list or to postpone action? Councilor Poling said that the project list existed but had not been finalized and he thought both the plan and project list should be adopted concur- rently. Mr. Lidz did not see how the council could adopt a project list that it did not have before it. Councilor Poling clarified that the intent of his motion was to include the project list in the PROS Plan. He asked for guidance on how to accomplish that intent. Mr. Lidz indicated the motion would have to be tabled for that to occur. Councilor Poling withdrew his motion with the consent of his second, Councilor Papé. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to postpone action until April 10, 2006. Councilor Papé supported the motion. He said legal counsel indicated to him that he believed the plan was likely to survive a legal challenge but that would come at a cost. He asked the council to consider the costs of any litigation and to support the motion. City Manager Taylor expressed concern that the council had repealed the existing ordinance establishing a comprehensive parks plan and could potentially leave nothing in its place until it developed the best legal strategy in regard to the project list. He asked the council to consider if that was the policy it wanted to leave the voters of the city with on the same night that it forwarded a strategy for placing on parks acquisition measure on the ballot. Councilor Pryor said he liked the idea of including the project list into the plan but had previously not thought it feasible. It now appeared it might be. He was willing to explore that possibility, but thought the manager’s point about a lack of an ordinance was well-taken. He suggested the council postpone the adoption of the plan until it had a project list in hand and on February 14, as a member of the prevailing side, he could move to reconsider the ordinance adopted as part of item 5. He acknowledged that was a complicated approach. Councilor Bettman did not find the threat of a lawsuit by the Lane County Homebuilders Association to be sufficient reason to postpone action. She asserted the subtext of the threat, like the Goal 5 and other land use and zoning issues, was to use every possible means to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB). People were trying to use a popular initiative with a lot of community input to leverage the expansion of the UGB. She pointed out the manager followed the council’s directive in returning with the plan as he had. Councilor Bettman said she had some issues with the project list, particularly as it regarded the systems development charge (SDC). She was surprised that people were so willing to include the project list in the plan because it committed the City to $220 million if projects, escalating the SDC. She questioned that MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 14 Regular Meeting