Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Zelenka asked if the OWEB grant money could be utilized if there were willing sellers. Ms. Weiss responded that this would be possible if the land was being purchased at the appraised value. Councilor Zelenka asserted that the Beverly/Green properties were located on the Ridgeline Trail corridor. He agreed with Councilor Ortiz that it was puzzling that the City was putting effort and creativity into getting money for the Ridgeline Trail properties when there was clear direction from the council to put effort into the purchase of the properties inside the UGB. Councilor Zelenka asked what would happen if the City did not receive the OWEB grant. Ms. Weiss replied that it would not impact the Santa Clara park project because it was in a different category of funding. She noted that there was also funding set aside from the 1998 bond measure for Santa Clara. She stated that it was as yet unknown whether it would affect the Beverly/Green parcels because the cost of the parcels was not known. She reiterated that if the City did not receive the OWEB grant, the City would be faced with the choice of pursuing other sources of funding or deciding not to pursue the acquisition of the Ridgeline parcels. Councilor Zelenka asked what staff would do in the absence of “clear council direction” on how to move forward at that point. Ms. Weiss responded that staff would come before the council for direction. Councilor Zelenka thought the Beverly/Green properties would likely be purchased using moneys designated for parcels near the Ridgeline Trail. He felt the City was somewhat “stuck” because to say no to the OWEB grant would mean the City would have to pay $2 million for the Ridgeline parcels and to say “yes” meant the City would have to pay $1 million. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Ms. Weiss confirmed that the money from the 1998 and 2006 bonds that was dedicated for a park in the Santa Clara area may not be used for other projects. She clarified that the legal language of the bond did not attach funding amounts to the different categories of parks, but how it had been communicated to the voters did attach funding amounts to the categories. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Clark, City Attorney Jerome Lidz said he had not reviewed the bond language recently and should not answer the question posed to Ms. Weiss at this time. Councilor Clark surmised that the money was set aside and intended for the purpose of building a park in the Santa Clara area and that it had been sold to the voters with that in mind, but it was within legal parameters for the City to change its collective mind. Councilor Bettman recalled that the CCIGR unanimously approved the application for the Forest Legacy to include a City match of 25 percent. She asked why staff had “unilaterally upped it to 50 percent.” Ms. Weiss explained that staff was trying to put together the most competitive application possible and trying to stay within the spirit of what was determined in the CCIGR. She said staff knew there would be another chance to come before the CCIGR. Councilor Bettman called this a major inconsistency. She wondered what the purpose was of coming before the CCIGR if staff would make a “completely different decision and unilaterally allocate $1 million” in PROS funding. She averred that councilors should stand up and demand “some kind of accountability.” In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Weiss clarified that the amount of money for the City’s match had been reduced from $1.678 million to $1 million because a couple of the properties had been dropped from consideration for acquisition leaving two. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 11 Regular Meeting