CC Minutes - 02/28/11 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Ortiz asked if the bill was likely to pass. Ms. Wilson said it was possible. The State was struggling to raise extra revenue. No matter the position the City took, staff planned to watch the bill closely to ensure that the City's share of the revenue was not reduced. Councilor Pryor pointed out that people smoked because they chose to, not because they had to. However, he acknowledged Ms. Wilson's remarks about the bill's impact on the City's bottom line, so he was willing to support the CCIGR's position. Roll call vote: The amendment to the motion failed, 4:4; councilors Poling, Clark, Pryor, and Farr voting no, and councilors Taylor, Ortiz, Zelenka, and Brown voting yes. Roll call vote: The main motion failed, 4:4; councilors Poling, Clark, Pryor, and Farr voting yes, and councilors Taylor, Ortiz, Zelenka, and Brown voting no. City Attorney Klein indicated that as a result of the tie, the City would have no position on House Bill 2231. House Bill 2352 Councilor Brown, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to adopt the CCIGR recommendation of Monitor for House Bill 2352. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the motion to change the City's position on the bill to Priority 3 Oppose. Ms. Wilson said staff originally recommended a position of Priority 3 oppose because as drafted, the bill required local governments to keep a rolling supply of industrial land and they would be required to mitigate lost acreage immediately. The land in question must also be shovel -ready within a year, which was very challenging to accomplish. Ms. Wilson said the issues it addressed were very complex but the bill itself was very simple and she believed it was unworkable. She thought the concept behind the bill would be addressed through other bills. She recommended the City monitor the bill and see how it fit in to the legislature's land use discussion. Councilor Clark believed that the approach embodied in the legislation was similar to the goal the City was trying to accomplish in the Envision Eugene process, that of a ready -to -go inventory of industrial lands. Councilor Zelenka disagreed with Councilor Clark. He pointed out the bill called for any lost industrial land lost to development to be immediately replaced by more industrial land no matter the jurisdiction's total land supply. It would "set in stone" the amount of industrial land. Roll call vote: The amendment to the motion failed, 4:4; councilors Taylor, Ortiz, Zelenka, and Brown voting yes, and councilors Poling, Pryor, Clark, and Farr voting no. Roll call vote: The motion failed, 3:5; councilors Poling, Pryor, and Clark voting yes. Mr. Klein noted that as the result of the motion, the council would not have a position on House Bill 2352. MINUTES— Eugene City Council February 28, 2011 Page 10 Regular Meeting