Item 2A-Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Nathanson said she tended not to support the amendment because she thought it very important the study have public respect and confidence. The lack of confidence expressed by councilors suggested to her the process was starting out wrong; that attitude would call into question all the conversations about the study's results. However, she was concerned that postponing action would lead to the council attempted to micromanage the study. She said that the Eugene council would be substituting its judgment for that of the professional managers and writing into the document the council's own needs and not considering the needs of its partner jurisdictions. Councilor Nathanson asked City Manager Taylor for input, and how the process could move forward if the council insisted on developing the study's criteria. City Manager Taylor said the council could postpone its decision and reschedule it for September. The council could review the relevant materials via e-mail before that time and take action, avoiding the need for a work session. If the council wanted to schedule a work session, it had time available on several dates. City Manager Taylor advised the council to pass the motion and work with the partnership on the details, or schedule the item for final action on September 13. Councilor Nathanson indicated she did not want a council work session and as she wished to avoid getting "deeper in the swamp" about the study scope, criteria, methodology, objectives, and desired outcomes, particularly in the absence of partner input. However, she wanted to find a solution that satisfied all the concerns expressed by councilors Bettman, Pap~, and Kelly. Councilor Taylor indicated her opposition to the motion. She agreed with Councilor Bettman that there was no emergency, and wanted the study to be done right. Councilor Bettman suggested a work session would address the last question asked by Councilor Nathanson, that of how to address the concerns expressed by councilors. Councilor Pap~ said that, like Councilor Nathanson, he did not want to micromanage the study. He asked Mr. Roberts about the role of EcoNorthwest and why the firm was not mentioned in the materials before the council. Mr. Coyle indicated the firm was a noted one that did such work, but the firm had not been granted the contract. Mr. Pap~ thought the stipulation in the amendment for an RFP and board review satisfied the concerns expressed by councilors and would also serve to keep the issue in the public eye. Councilor Bettman clarified that the information regarding EcoNorthwest was provided by Mr. Roberts to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Roberts had recommended to the board that the firm be hired. At the suggestion of Councilor Kelly, Mr. Coyle invited Mr. Roberts to address the council regarding the topic. Mr. Roberts indicated the rationale for his recommendation that EcoNorthwest be hired was to ensure there was no community perception that the partnership had conducted the study. He thought the study produced by Mr. Duncan was perceived as biased by some because of the chamber's sponsorship. He did not recommend that the council ask the partnership board to review the RFP as he did not think it appropriate role for the board. Mr. Roberts said his support for hiring EcoNorthwest was based on the wide experience of the firm's principle, Terry Moore, in conducting such studies. He said the partnership would not pick the contractor, as that was the role of the three jurisdictions. Mr. Roberts suggested the MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 12 Regular Session