Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey called for discussion on the amendment. <br /> <br /> Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to amend the motion by <br /> changing the date to September 13, 2004. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly believed there was adequate time on September 13 to discuss the issue. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson supported tabling the amended motion because she believed it demonstrated the <br />councilors were negotiating in good faith, and because Springfield had yet to take action on the issue. She <br />hoped the council had sufficient information and some options to consider when the September 13 <br />discussion occurred. She reiterated her interest in a solution that was acceptable to all the parties <br />involved, and one that gave the community the ability to start the study on the right foot. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap~ did not like the delay being proposed but indicated he would support the motion for the <br />reasons stated by Councilor Nathanson. <br /> <br />With the reassurance that the council would have a full discussion and the ability to entertain amendments <br />to the main motion on September 13, councilors Bettman and Taylor indicated acceptance of Councilor <br />Kelly's amendment regarding the date as a friendly amendment to the motion to table. <br /> <br />Councilor Poling said he would support the motion to table solely for the purpose of being able to offer a <br />motion for reconsideration at the next meeting on August 11, 2004. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey expressed disappointment at the delay being proposed but acknowledged the concerns <br />expressed by Councilor Nathanson. He agreed it would be better if the full council embraced the study <br />and was able to move forward with enthusiasm. However, he was concerned that there was an attempt <br />being made to "kill" the study. He hoped his concern was misplaced. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey noted that absent Councilor Scott Meisner indicated his support for approving the funding <br />for the study, leading to the potential the motion could be reconsidered on August 11. He did not <br />understand what was so complicated about the issue. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly noted his earlier submission of an alternative motion to the staff-suggested motion, and <br />would have voted to move forward had that language been found acceptable. <br /> <br />Speaking to the Mayor's earlier remarks that the community knew how to conduct such a study, Councilor <br />Kelly said if the community knew how to do such a study, the chamber's study would have not "sat on a <br />shelf." The base methodology of the study did not provide what many considered to be good data. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly noted the roundtable's support for the study as well as for the completion of the Natural <br />Resources Study and upland wildlife habitat land study. He said that for some members of the roundtable, <br />their support for the commercial/industrial lands support was contingent upon completion of the Natural <br />Resources Study. He asked staff to return to the council on September 13 with a proposal regarding how <br />the council could move forward with both the study and Natural Resources Study, including budget <br />numbers. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 14 <br /> Regular Session <br /> <br /> <br />