CCMinutes - 08/11/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 quidlvro quo for a vote on funding for the commercial and industrial lands study. Ms. Nathanson wanted to vote on the commercial and industrial lands study and that issue alone. She would not support an approach that tied the funding to the completion of the Natural Resources Study. Other issues such as the criteria could be addressed separately. Ms. Bettman wanted the council to look at the study process to ensure it was unbiased and without a work session that would not happen. She thought there were issues to be discussed on which the council needed to provide input. If the council did not do that, she did not care when action occurred. Either way, she believed the council majority was ;;fast-tracking the issue" for %bvious" reasons; they hoped the data would be available from the study that would support moving forward with one endeavor or another before there was a change in the council's political make-up. Regarding the Natural Resources Study, Ms. Bettman believed Mr. Kelly was justified in raising the issue given the remarks of the roundtable, which supported the commercial and industrial study in conjunction with the completion of the natural resources inventory. She pointed out the local area was in compliance with State law in regard to commercial and industrial lands, but out of compliance in regard to natural resources. She believed the roundtable reached a sensible compromise. She thought completion of the Natural Resources Study was a relevant topic for the council to discuss when it discussed the commercial and industrial lands study. Ms. Solomon disagreed that the council was ;;fast-tracking" the issue, pointing out the council had been discussing the topic for more than a year. She supported the motion Mr. Poling planned to offer, saying it addressed most of the concerns raised by councilors. She wanted to consider the issue today. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to call the question. The mo- tion failed, 5:3, because it did not garner six votes of support; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. Mr. Poling read from a letter from the Board of County Commissioners indicating its willingness to take a lead role on the study and describing the general nature of the study. The letter also requested the council's approval of the study funding. Mr. Poling believed the letter addressed many of the issues addressed by the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development and the members of the roundtable, as well as letters the council received from various interested citizens. He said the City continued to do business in 2004 with information from 1988. Eugene was just one of the ;;pieces of the puzzle," and it needed to work with Lane County and Springfield to work on the study. Mayor Torrey said he had no objections to close or tie votes and believed the council should vote its convictions and move on. However, he was concerned about the lack of confidence the City Council had repeatedly shown in the City Manager. He said the motion that Mr. Poling planned to offer gave the manager responsibility for administering and issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP). He said the council could communicate to the manager what it wanted in the RFP. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 7 Work Session