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