CC Minutes - 08/08/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson explained that she wanted to provide staff the opportunity to work with PeaceHealth to the degree that the parties were willing to negotiate; however, she did not believe a significant amount of staff time should be utilized on something that would not be worthwhile. Mr. Klein advised that Item 6 be amended to state "move to rescind direction." Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Farr voiced their acceptance to this amended language. Ms. Bettman referred to Item 3 and said that it was not the intent to put a bond before the voters; rather, to reduce the system development charges for transportation which were justified if the hospital located in the city center where there was adequate infrastructure and alternate modes of services. Ms. Bettman referred to Item 6 and reiterated the importance of community input on that issue. She pointed out there was not adequate analysis and data available, that the City should continue to develop a viable alternative for review, and that she would not support the amendment. With regard to items 2 and 3, Mr. Meisner questioned if in public discussions with PeaceHealth and the City, it should be left open for those bodies to discuss street closures and financial incentives. Mr. Johnson responded that removing items 2 and 3 would make it less specific as to what should be brought back to the council; however, he suggested that a "general direction" could include items 2 and 3. Mr. Meisner said he could support the amendment if that would be made clear. Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Farr agreed they could accept additional language of clarity as a friendly amendment. Mr. Farr stated he would support the amendment but would not support the main motion. He voiced his frustration at the process as he had not been provided the opportunity to speak to the main motion. Mr. Pap8 complimented staff on the financial analysis of the sites they provided. He said it was his understanding that there was a $35 million difference in acquiring properties at either the Hilyard or Willamette locations. In response to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Bowers replied that the market value was approximately $5 - $6 million if PeaceHealth traded or sold the Crescent property of 38 acres. He added that the site was vacant and would entail acquisition and relocation costs whereas the sites downtown had been improved. Mr. Johnson referred to Attachment K in the meeting packet and noted the key points for funding of infrastructure improvements related to new development. Mr. Pap8 concluded that aside from construction costs, there were approximately $30 million of addition costs that would be required to build downtown versus in the Coburg area. Mr. Kelly spoke to the amendment and said he could not support it as it sent a signal the City was not interested in all of the possibilities. However, he stated he could support contingent language. Mayor Torrey spoke to the downtown site versus the Coburg site and surmised the City was prepared to forgive system development charges downtown, whereas with the Coburg site, it was not. He raised the issue of the Coburg overpass and interchange and referred to the $400 million funding measure that was separated into two parts: $200 million was to be appropriated to new construction activities and the number 1 criteria for modernization was lane capacity; the number 2 criteria was interchanges on a multi-lane highway. He stressed that if PeaceHealth relocated to Coburg, he believed the City would be granted the funding to build the improvements to the interchange that would be needed. Mayor Torrey reported that the rules would be adopted in the coming week by the Oregon Transportation Commission and that action would provide the MINUTES- City Council Work Session August 8, 2001