Item 4A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

council. He said the Uniform Revenue Bond Act (URBA) process would be required if EWEB was to move forward in 2007. Mayor Piercy expressed pride in EWEB and the work it did on behalf of the community. She encouraged more joint meetings between the board and council. President Bishop concurred. President Bishop noted upcoming board meetings at which the project would be discussed. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Mr. Kelly recognized the challenge that EWEB faced in master planning for the site under the constraints of the Downtown Plan, but emphasized the importance of the site to the plan. He hoped that the City and EWEB could work together to make the master planning process short and useful. He suggested that EWEB consider working with the City cooperatively on a Request for Information (RFI) or Request for Proposals (RFP) to gauge the degree of interest from the development community and gather ideas to inform the master plan. Mr. Kelly urged the commissioners to consider the potential of providing wireless service to the community. He believed that EWEB was a logical provider for such a service, which he considered a strong economic development tool. Mr. Papé hoped the board and council could meet more often in the future. He endorsed a suggestion from resident Bob Cassidy that the board and council form a committee composed of two members of each body. Responding to a concern expressed by Mr. Papé about the potential for EWEB to truck fish in rather than install at fish ladder at Trail Bridge Reservoir, Mr. Berggren said that EWEB recognized the importance of a fish ladder. EWEB committed to the regulatory agencies to look aggressively at options for a fish ladder. EWEB was in the process of bringing an independent engineer to work with its consulting engineers to develop effective fish ladder alternatives that would be acceptable to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). He hoped to have those recommendations by January 1, 2007. However, EWEB had to submit a placeholder in its final license application, which was due by November 30, and the catch and truck alternative was included as a placeholder with the intent of further examination. Ms. Bettman said that the Downtown Plan contained strong language with regard to the EWEB site because of the concerns of the councilors and Planning Commissioners who worked on the document. The City considered the site a major community asset and the council did not want to be in a position where it had no influence over what happened to it. She was concerned to read that EWEB was moving forward to pursue an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) and a zone change for the property. She understood wanting to maximize the value of the property, but maintained that if that was the case, EWEB was, contrary to its statements, in the business of land use planning. Ms. Bettman said the master plan must be approved by the City as required by the Downtown Plan. She did not think that was optional. Ms. Bettman hoped to hear more discussion about that. She suggested that EWEB might want to think about contracting for someone to do the master plan similar to its work on the Roosevelt property. President Bishop clarified that when EWEB used the term “master planning” in its documents, it was referring to something less specific and more generic than what Ms. Bettman was discussing. The board had not realized it was a legal or technical term for the City. She thanked Ms. Bettman for raising the issue, and assured her that EWEB had not reached the master planning stage. Mr. Berggren concurred, saying there was no intent to circumvent the City. He was not sure that EWEB staff had the technical understand- MINUTES—Eugene City Council/ November 15, 2006 Page 2 Eugene Water & Electric Board of Commissioners