Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mayor Piercy reiterated that she was determined to continue to work toward acquisition of the properties, but could not agree with Ms. Taylor's motion. City Manager pro tem Jones said she had always been clear about the council's direction on the Beverly and Green properties and that was first and foremost in every action she took; however, she was also trying to address the community's wishes when the parks bond measure was approved. She said there was a list of potential funding sources for the properties outside of the three sources Ms. Bettman identified. She explained that the current negotiations equated to about $1.5 million and remaining funds were still available. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting in opposition and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in favor. The mayor cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. B. WORK SESSION: Charter Amendment for Eminent Domain Procedures Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to refer to the voters a charter amendment that would require an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the City Council to adopt a condemnation ordinance or resolution. Speaking to the motion, Mr. Poling said that the subject of eminent domain had recently surfaced in the public's consciousness because of downtown redevelopment activities and the South Hills properties. He said eminent domain was a very heavy-handed tactic for taking people's property and was an added expense to taxpayers because of the legal issues involved. He wanted a charter amendment instead of an ordinance to ensure the requirement could not be easily changed by the council in the future and would require another public vote. He said the City had used eminent domain in the past, but that had been to acquire small pieces of property for right-of-way or other infrastructure. He felt that requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the council was appropriate to the gravity of using eminent domain. Ms. Bettman objected to requesting a charter amendment on a narrow issue as bad public policy. She said there were already obstacles to condemnation that established a high threshold for any action and it would require a very high priority for elected officials to overcome those obstacles. She did not think a charter amendment was necessary and would not support the motion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Ms. Ortiz agreed that eminent domain was a very "heavy hammer" that should require more than a tie vote of the council broken by the Mayor, but she felt there should be a more thorough discussion by the council before sending the matter to the voters. She said there were instances where eminent domain might be a necessary tool, including locating a new hospital in Eugene and redeveloping downtown, but wanted further discussion about how a charter amendment could affect future decisions. Mr. Pryor opined that the general public would like to see more safeguards in place against government being able to take property in what was perceived to be an arbitrary and capricious manner. He said requiring a larger majority of the council would probably find resonance with most people in the community. He said if the motion did not pass at this point he still wished to have the discussion in the future because eminent domain was one of the most drastic actions a government could take and it should not be done with MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 9 Work Session