CC Minutes - 04/14/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor said the information was useful in understanding the practical aspects of the Riverfront site. He wanted to retain the Riverfront site as an option if McKenzie Willamette was still interested, but concerned that there were insurmountable obstacles. He wanted to continue to move forward with the three sites, but if one was not practical from a financial perspective, the council should know that soon so it could consider other options as decisions needed to be made within the hospital’s timeline. Ms. Piercy said the question was whether negotiations had been approached by all three entities from the perspective of how the Riverfront site could be made to work for everyone. Ms. Jones replied that was the framework for the initial discussions as that was the first choice for a hospital site, but the reality was that the site was not for sale and the University had plans for the property and its proximity to the campus was extremely important. She thought if there was more time some of those issues could be resolved, but that was not likely to happen within McKenzie Willamette’s timeline and staff was trying to identify other possible scenarios; it was disheartening to realize the challenges that would have to be overcome in terms of limited time and resources. Mr. Clark agreed that the timeline was a key issue and echoed Mr. Pryor’s remarks. He asserted that the people of Eugene deserved a hospital, whether at the Riverfront site or a location in North Eugene. He noted that the property taxes from a hospital would help considerably to solve some of the City’s financial challenges. He hoped to accommodate McKenzie Willamette’s needs. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman’s comments regarding the City’s efforts over the years to accommodate the University. She was not interested in devoting any staff time to the 4J or Register Guard site as neither was advantageous to the community. Ms. Bettman commented that all sites would require a Metro Plan amendment and zone changes and that would preclude the council’s moving to support the sites without evaluating the pros and cons. She said the McKenzie Willamette and University timelines appeared to be close and if the expertise did not exist within the City organization to engage in hard negotiating it should contract for that expertise. She would add that to the first option. She asked how much of the Riverfront site was within the Riverfront urban renewal district. Ms. Muir indicated that 100 percent of the site was within the district. Ms. Bettman said the University was a nontaxable entity and any development it did on that property would be paid for by diverting taxes from the County, the schools and the City’s General Fund and subsidized by City taxpayers. She asked about the process for sunsetting an urban renewal district or expanding the spending limit for the purpose of siting a hospital. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that expanding the spending limit would require the Urban Renewal Agency (URA) to initiate the amendment, Planning Commission public hearings and an ordinance adopted by the City Council, which would be subject to referendum. He said the timeline was approximate 100 days and the increase in maximum indebtedness could be tied directly to hospital siting. Ms. Bettman felt that was an option for funding acquisition of the property and the taxes paid by the hospital would go back into the urban renewal district. Ms. Ortiz declared a potential conflict of interest as she was employed by Sacred Heart hospital. Ms. Bettman asked why McKenzie Willamette was not negotiating with either the 4J School District or the Register Guard for the North Eugene sites and why the EWEB site was not being considered now that operations were being moved to another location. Ms. Muir said staff was still exploring any site that might MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 4 Work Session