Item 2A-Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap6 wanted the council to consider Section 8.4401 of the ordinance as it mentioned only a written rental agreement, saying it was his experience renters often entered into verbal agreements, and that was not addressed. Mr. Pap6 suggested Mr. Kelly's concerns about illegal housing conversions should already be addressed by the nuisance code. B. Reconsideration of August 9 Motion Mayor Torrey called on Mr. Poling. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to reconsider the council's vote of August 9 postponing to September 13 action on the motion to ap- prove funding for the industrial and commercial lands study. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments. Mr. Kelly preferred to retain the original date for the proposed work session. He thought more informa- tion needed to be provided on such issues as who administered the study before the council could make a decision, and he was confident with that the council would be able to have a good discussion on September 13 and reach a near-majority outcome. He preferred that near-majority to a deadlocked council. Pointing out that the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development had emphasized the need for the study to have broad community support, Mr. Kelly said he concurred, and if the council pushed ahead at this time there would be a perception in some parts of the community that the study was not intended as a fact-gathering exercise, but rather as a political weapon. Mr. Kelly did not see a need for the council to revisit its August 9 discussion. He said the purpose of reconsideration as stated in Roberts Rules of Order was to allow a body to reconsider any hasty, ill- advised, or erroneous action, or to account for new information or changes in the situation. He asked Mr. Poling to explain in what way the August 9 6:1 vote represented haste or error. Ms. Taylor said community support required an informed community, and that took time. She said she had preferred to wait even longer than September 13. Mr. Pap6 believed there was broad support for the study itself and now the council was talking about the credibility of the study. He agreed the council needed to discuss how to accomplish the study so it was credible and acceptable across the community and lacked the biases that people read into the report don by the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce report. He wanted to move forward. Mr. Meisner, who had not been present at the August 9 meeting but had viewed the meeting tape, supported the motion to reconsider, although he did not guarantee he would support the subsequent motion Mr. Poling planned to offer. He was concerned that scheduling the issue for a full work session would result in the council micromanaging the study "to death." Speaking to Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the reason for reconsideration, Ms. Nathanson said she had been okay with the tenor of Monday's discussion until the end, when the issue of the Natural Resources Study had been raised by Mr. Kelly. She supported Mr. Poling's motion because she was concerned that completion of the Natural Resources Study would become a quidpro quo for a vote on funding for the MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 6 Regular Session