CC Minutes - 02/22/06 Work Session
City of Eugene
CC Minutes - 02/22/06 Work Session
6/10/2010 10:28:39 AM
4/20/2006 1:55:40 PM
City Council Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
Laurence called attention to the draft motions in the AIS. Approval of the motions would allow the <br />integrated design concept to go forward. <br /> <br />Ms. Laurence reviewed upcoming decision points in the process, which included the supplemental budget <br />appropriation and public hearing on the competitive bidding process, both scheduled for March 13. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for council questions and comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé declared a conflict of interest due to his son’s employment with Gerding/Edlen Developers and left <br />the council table. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the motions moved the project forward, and she believed a public hearing on the bidding <br />exemption for the parking garage was required before the council took action. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved that the East Broadway proposal decisions <br />package be postponed until the next available work session after a public hearing is held but <br />within the procedural requirements of Eugene Code Section 2.1425 and applicable State <br />law. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she raised the issue of the competitive bid process several times, and the previous evening <br />the council received a memorandum from the City Attorney's Office referencing the applicable provision in <br />the City Code. She disagreed with the City Manager’s recommendation to move forward at this time. She <br />did not think the council should take action until a public hearing occurred about the proposal to exempt the <br />parking garage from the competitive bidding process. A vote on the motions before the council presupposed <br />the outcome of that hearing. Ms. Bettman perceived the council’s role as being that of a legislative check on <br />the administration of the City and to act on behalf of the public interest. She did not think the council acted <br />in the public interest by taking action before the hearing. She thought that insulted the public. Going <br />through the public process would substantiate the information the council needed to create findings to <br />support a conclusion the project should go forward. <br /> <br />Regarding the legality of taking action at this time, Mr. Klein said there was a series of actions that must be <br />approved by the council for the parking garage project to go forward. The council must hold a public <br />hearing and act on a supplemental budget for both the City and Urban Renewal Agency, and at some point <br />in the future would consider the alley vacation as well. The development agreement would not be signed <br />until after March 13, and by then the council would have acted on the supplemental budget and held the <br />public hearing on the competitive bidding process. Even then, the project did not go forward unless the <br />council exercised its discretion to approve the alley vacation. The council could legally take action today on <br />the motions in the AIS. However, the council did not have to act today. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed the project had upsides and downsides and the upsides appeared to significantly outweigh <br />the downsides. However, he believed that the council needed to act with integrity and should postpone <br />action on the motion until after the public hearing, as he did not know what would be said at the hearing. <br />The public parking garage was linked to the Whole Foods project, and to act today would signal the public <br />that the council did not care what it had to say. He thought that was inappropriate. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mr. Klein’s remarks, Mr. Kelly suggested that it would be close to malfeasance of the council’s <br />duty to decline to act on the alley vacation if the development agreement was already approved and the <br />project underway. He supported the motion. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 2 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.