My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2012
>
CC Agenda - 04/23/12 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/20/2012 12:19:41 PM
Creation date
4/20/2012 11:53:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/23/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
protection ordinances. He didn’t think Lane County having sole jurisdiction was <br />endangering the water quality of Springfield or Eugene. He added that all of <br />Eugene’s water comes under the sole jurisdiction of Lane County. <br /> <br />Ortiz said she was concerned about this. She said that Eugene has been going <br />through a lot of work around Envision Eugene. She added that they are working <br />on the issues of Santa Clara River Road and what they can do to help be better <br />neighbors. She hoped that they can have that conversation before any of this gets <br />decided. She asked what the next steps would be for the jurisdictions. <br /> <br />Miller explained that is up to the elected officials whether or not they want to <br />continue deliberations. He recommended a joint deliberation as it is better for the <br />public and it is more efficient. He added that if they can’t conclude deliberations <br />this evening, they can coordinate a future date. He stated it was important to give <br />the date, time and place of the future deliberations so they don’t have to notice it. <br /> <br />Emily Jerome, city of Eugene, didn’t think anyone anticipated additional hearings <br />from the governing bodies. She wanted to know if the elected officials were <br />going to close the record. She added that then the three jurisdictions would <br />deliberate on their own and those minutes would be included in the overall record <br />and the three jurisdictions make decisions separately. She stated that because the <br />city of Eugene is the least affected, they would wait until Lane County and <br />Springfield makes their decisions. <br /> <br />Ortiz requested to leave the record open for one week for additional comments <br />and this would be the city of Eugene’s last Public Hearing on this matter. <br /> <br />Mott explained that the Springfield City Council cannot make a decision on the <br />night of the First Hearing and Public Hearing. He added that was stated in their <br />charter. He indicated there was a need for the Springfield City Council to have a <br />work session. He said it was rare for the elected officials to reconvene after their <br />initial Public Hearing to jointly deliberate on the same night. He added the <br />protocol is that for whichever entity initiated the hearing to be the first to act and <br />then the other jurisdictions would act as soon thereafter if they can, assuming they <br />all adopt identical records. He recommended that the city of Springfield have a <br />work session that will occur in May. <br /> <br />Moore said she had concerns about Phase 1. She asked how Ordinance PA 1281 <br />was advantageous to the city of Springfield. She added that she had heard things <br />that made it advantageous to Lane County. <br /> <br />Lundberg indicated that issue needs to be discussed in a work session to look at <br />what it means for the city of Springfield. <br /> <br />Miller explained that the intent is to help provide recourse and accountability to <br />the elected officials for the people who live outside of the area but who are <br />17 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.