Laserfiche WebLink
With regard to Ms. Bettman's remarks, Mr. Pap6 said he did not think the community knew if it was out of <br />compliance with State rules related to the 20-year land supply. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed that the study should be done but emphasized the need for credibility. He said that the <br />motion did not speak to all his concerns. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved to amend the motion by adding "...The survey will draw <br /> upon existing data together with the on-the-ground verification of current <br /> uses and availability. This survey would also evaluate opportunities for <br /> redevelopment and assembly of available parcels to determine how the use <br /> of existing land might be maximized." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly's motion to amend died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson was disturbed to hear that some councilors still believed that the Eugene council alone could <br />craft an RFP given that it was one of three partners in the study. It was not a City of Eugene project. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said the amount of funding being proposed did not appear "out of line," based on past <br />experience. Mr. Taylor concurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Taylor to consider the two sentences mentioned by Mr. Kelly for inclusion in the <br />RFP. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he was unwilling to see City funds used to study unincorporated areas of the community. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman repeated that the study would not be credible for the reasons she previously mentioned and <br />because it would lack Eugene council scrutiny. She pointed out that parcel characteristics were proposed to <br />be studied "as the budget allows," which also left considerable latitude. She repeated her complaints about <br />the membership of the technical advisory committee. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor repeated that the council needed more time and discussion. She thought a regional study of <br />commercial and industrial lands was in order and discussion of who paid for what was appropriate as what <br />one jurisdiction did affected another. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said he brought forth the letter to tie together all the information the City had. Eugene was one <br />of three agencies, and he did not believe the council needed to get into the details of the RFP. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked who would issue the contract. Mr. Taylor said that had yet to be decided. He indicated <br />that, should the motion pass, he believed there was an opportunity for all concerned to review the RFP <br />without the need for a work session. He presumed one of the three jurisdictions would be the contracting <br />agency. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked if the Metro Partnership be the contracting agency. Mr. Taylor believed that was possible. <br />Mr. Kelly averred that in that case, Mr. Poling had a conflict of interest because his wife worked for the <br />Metro Partnership. City Attorney Klein indicated that since the money was pass-through money, there was <br />no conflict. He clarified that given the motion involved an intergovernmental agreement between the three <br />jurisdictions, one of the three jurisdictions would issue the contract. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />