CC Minutes - 05/12/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

process and put the entire burden squarely on the shoulders of taxpayers. She asked for a copy of the OWEG grant application. Mr. Zelenka said the acquisition committee’s report would be presented to the council in June and did not see a need to refer the matter to the ballot at this time. Ms. Taylor stated she would vote against the motion as the bond measure included funds for open space and natural resources. She thought saving natural resources and water quality was far more important than solving temporary problems. Mr. Pryor said it was a challenging issue. He wanted the City to acquire the property, but did not want to condemn it or pay more than it was worth. He said the financing structure was complicated and it would be difficult for the voters to give a definitive answer without clearly understanding the details of a purchase. He preferred to develop a financing proposal first and thought there should be another appraisal of the property because market conditions had changed dramatically. Mr. Poling thanked Ms. Solomon for bringing the issue forward. He was hearing from an increasing number of people in the community, including those who had worked on getting the PROS bond passed, that the asking price for the property was too high. He would support the motion. Mr. Clark pointed out that the map and list of identified projects associated with the bond measure did not include the Amazon headwaters properties. He felt it was appropriate to discuss use of bond funds for the acquisition, although that meant they would be taken from another use. Mr. Zelenka commented that the City was still awaiting notification about its Oregon Parks and Recreation Department grant application. He agreed with Mr. Pryor that more information was needed and would not support the motion at this time. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the cost of acquisition would need to be identified if the issue was placed on the ballot. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that would depend on how the item was placed on the ballot; a general advisory vote on whether or not to buy the property would not need to include an amount, but asking the voters for additional revenue for the purchase would require a specific dollar amount. Ms. Bettman said there were still too many outstanding questions to place the matter on the ballot. Ms. Solomon disagreed. She said if the council believed that acquiring the property was a priority for the community, citizens should be able to confirm that so the City could move forward without any hesitation. She said several issues clouded that decision, including inflated property prices and questionable participa- tion on the committee by a member who owned land contiguous to the subject property. She felt that was potentially a conflict of interest and the contentious nature of the committee’s efforts was ultimately a reflection on the council, potentially undermining its credibility. Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Solomon that there were concerns with the committee’s activities. He pointed out that the City would likely have to fund a majority of the purchase in the absence of grant funding and with the expected public safety deficiencies in the City and County, it was appropriate to let the voters weigh in on how expenditures were prioritized. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Clark and Mr. Poling voting in favor. Mr. Poling left the meeting at 6:05 p.m.