Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mayor Piercy asked if there was a quasi-judicial conflict with the council’s endorsement of the MOU. Mr. <br />Klein said in his opinion there was no problem; approving the definitions of open space and mixed use were <br />not binding commitments that the City, in its regulatory capacity, would apply. He said the MOU could <br />also be clarified to indicate that it was an agreement between EWEB and City staff; throughout the process <br />staff had made it clear to EWEB that nothing in the MOU could bind the City in its regulatory capacity. He <br />said the motion could be revised to indicate the council was only approving specific items and the City <br />Manager was agreeing to the rest of the MOU. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Laurence said the council would agree to select four <br />members of the advisory committee and staff would develop criteria for selecting committee members and a <br />recruitment process. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka recognized that the definition of mixed use in the MOU was not binding on the council, but he <br />felt the intent of the mixed use definition could be more clearly articulated. He would support a revised <br />motion to approve only specific items and not the entire MOU and urged the City Manager to closely review <br />the agreement before signing it. He also did not think the City staff's role was as clearly defined as it could <br />be. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said his intent was to acknowledge the collaborative nature of the endeavor and reach an <br />understanding on how to proceed. He said the MOU was not a contract and not binding on the council; <br />signing it would be a demonstration of good faith, which EWEB had already shown with unanimous <br />adoption. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark thanked EWEB and City staff for their efforts and the EWEB commissioners for their demonstra- <br />tion of a desire to work cooperatively to determine the future of the riverfront property. He would support <br />the MOU as written or as revised. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she would support a revised motion, but wished the council could be more involved with the <br />planning process. She saw no point in approving the entire MOU. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein pointed out that if the MOU was changed, it might need to go back to the EWEB commissioners; <br />simply revising the motion consistent with his suggestion would allow the City Manager to sign the same <br />MOU that was approved by EWEB. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to endorse the portion of the Memo- <br />randum of Understanding between the City Manager and the Eugene Water & Elec- <br />tric Board that committed the City Council to reviewing and approving selection <br />criteria for the citizen advisory committee and to selecting four members of that <br />committee. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz was pleased at the prospect of working with EWEB to use the property in a wise manner that <br />would benefit the community. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said he could support the motion if it maintained the spirit of cooperation. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman questioned why the MOU should be entered into if it was nonbinding on the council. She <br />expressed frustration with the restrictions imposed on the council regarding a hospital but the permissiveness <br />of the EWEB riverfront property process. She felt that the rules should be applied consistently to both <br />situations. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2007 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />