Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

to complete the regional facility and it was because the process had not been completed all at one time that the titles were not all transferred at the time of each individual purchase. Councilor Kelly asked why the MWMC purchased some of the land to the northeast if it had not needed it for current or future sewerage. Mr. Ruffier was uncertain. He conjectured that it had been purchased because it was contiguous. Councilor Kelly commented that it was unfortunate that no members of the MWMC were present. It was noted that Councilor Poling served on the board of the MWMC. Councilor Poling understood that the additional land had been purchased as a buffer between the actual working facility and the surrounding area. Mr. Ruffier affirmed that it served that purpose. He added that when the facility was originally designed there were expectations for expansion and enough land was purchased to double the capacity of the existing plant, given the design capabilities at the time. Councilor Poling asked if any of the land would be used if the plant was doubled in size or if it would remain a buffer and a dedicated bicycle path. Mr. Ruffier replied that under the 2004 Facilities Plan, which had been approved by the council, that property would stay as open space and a buffer area and the expanded facilities would all fit within the existing fence line, with one small exception. Councilor Poling noted that there had been some question regarding an island in the river raised at the last meeting. He wanted to point out that the island was not always accessible and usable given that it was often underwater during the winter. He also understood that if additional open space was needed, the City could come to the MWMC and request it. Mr. Ruffier said this was true. Councilor Poling said he could not support the amendment. He wanted to honor the original IGA as well as the one that had been reapproved in May. Councilor Bettman said she conferred with Mr. Lidz regarding the wording and she understood that some of the property had been purchased with mixed funds. However, she wished to note that some of the property that was being transferred had been purchased with local funds. She asserted that the property had been worth $1 million in 1991. Mr. Ruffier clarified that the original wastewater treatment plant had been listed as an asset worth $774,000 at that time. Councilor Bettman responded that it had not been appraised. She felt that given it was riverside property, it had likely increased in value. She said in the absence of appraisals, she thought it safe to assume that the City of Eugene was making a contribution above and beyond what was proportional to the City of Springfield and that it was “obviously above and beyond” what the MWMC needed. She opined it would be “wise stewardship” to retain the property. City Manager Taylor asked the City Council to resist the amendment for the following reasons: 1. It would require an additional partition; 2. It would renege on the City’s initial commitment to the MWMC; 3. It would add more cost, both for the cost of the partition and for what the City would be assessed as part of the Local Improvement District (LID) for River Avenue, given that this would give MWMC a smaller footprint. Councilor Pryor said while he could appreciate the desire to retain property that might not be needed by the MWMC, he was also aware that this was part of the original deal, and this deal involved a variety of MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 10 Regular Meeting