Laserfiche WebLink
important and the two north Eugene sites had not risen to the top as it did not appear there was unanimous <br />support for either site. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka commented that Ms. Bettman’s suggestions had merit and he was intrigued that Ms. Cate <br />indicated McKenzie-Willamette was still interested in the Riverfront site, which meant the council should <br />continue its interest in the site and more creative thinking could result in a hospital in Eugene. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy pointed out that considerable work was done on the EWEB site, but it was eliminated because <br />EWEB had no plans to move; now EWEB was moving and the possibilities for the site had changed <br />dramatically. She thought there were challenges with all of the sites and it would take time to work through <br />those issues. She said if the City really wanted a hospital on the south side of the river it was reasonable to <br />continue to negotiate on the Riverfront site, as well as revisit the work done on the EWEB site. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman moved to support continued discussions related to the <br />4J and Register Guard sites as potential hospital sites in Eugene. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to substitute a motion to support continued <br />negotiations with the University of Oregon and McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center to see <br />if the timeline and financial needs of the University could be negotiated to better align with <br />the timing needs of the hospital, and the financial resources of the hospital and the City of <br />Eugene ,and to direct the City Manager to consider bringing in outside expertise to negotiate <br />some of the elements of financing, land acquisition and other elements to expedite negotia- <br />tions and position the City to best advantage while addressing the needs of the University <br />and the hospital. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman spoke in support of her motion and the importance of engaging in negotiations with all assets <br />and requirements on the table. She said the Riverfront site was in the best interest of the community’s health <br />care, the hospital’s needs and the City’s tax base. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor was not certain it was an “either/or” situation and his original motion could be passed, followed <br />by Ms. Bettman’s motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested a friendly amendment to add options 2 and 3 to her motion. Mr. Pryor said he <br />would add those options as a friendly amendment if he could also include a requirement that a final decision <br />would be made by the end of May, based on the hospital’s timeline. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the end of May was a hard date. Ms. Cate replied that given the length of time the <br />hospital had been seeking an appropriate site it was time for the hospital to make a decision in the next <br />month or two. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed to accept a friendly amendment to include options 2 and 3 and require <br />a decision to be made by the end of May. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark urged the council not to send a message that it preferred the hospital in Springfield rather than a <br />site in North Eugene. He could support the motion as it kept all of the options open. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon expressed concern that the council had no backup plan if the Riverfront site could not be <br />successfully negotiated by the end of May. She feared the hospital would be lost to Springfield. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br />