CC Minutes - 02/12/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to a work session, a proposal that negotiates the City acquisition of the property in the event that it is declared surplus and provides for a City managed master plan process which outlines a collaborative process with EWEB. Mr. Poling said that while he appreciated Mr. Farmer informing the council that the board had not yet decided on which strategy it supported, he noted that the meeting had been set up as a time to find out what the City wanted. He also pointed out that the five-year time period that the City would have did not have to be used and that the sale could happen in a much less time. He said that he was still in favor of the recommended motion in the AIS and did not support Ms. Bettman’s motion. Mr. Pryor said that he thought that Ms. Bettman’s motion went further in making commitments that the recommended motion in the AIS. He said that he liked the motion because it initiated a planning process but did not necessarily make commitments with regard to surplus property and purchases. Mr. Pryor said that EWEB owned the property and it seemed logical to him that EWEB should be doing the master planning process with the City’s help. He said that question was who would own the master planning property. Mr. Zelenka said that the reason the property was in question was because EWEB needed to move and had a need for more functional space. He added that the economics for EWEB needed to make sense and the public benefit needed to be considered. He noted that there was a substantial, if not complete, overlap in constituents. If there was a financial benefit, the two entities should work together to capture that benefit and use it for EWEB’s move and also for the public infrastructure that would be needed. He said that he did think there were higher uses for that property and had a concern that the Willamette River and the riparian area needed to be adequately protected in the process. He said that he thought that the process should be collaborative and work toward a master plan. Mr. Zelenka acknowledged the City Manager for answering his question about why there was no city councilor on the advisory team. He said that he thought that it was important to have more public involvement in the planning process. He said that perhaps a way to get the council’s voice on the advisory team was through the selection of some of the community members on the team. Mr. Zelenka said that he was thinking of a process that would be more co-managed. He acknowledged the City’s interest in moving this forward while also acknowledging that the City did not own the property. He said that the EWEB commissioners needed to do what they needed to do in order to manage its fiduciary responsibilities as a board, and the council needed to do what was necessary in order to maximize the public benefit and make Eugene a nice place to live. Mr. Zelenka said that his problem with the motion was that EWEB had not yet declared the property surplus and therefore the City did not have any options at this point. Ms. Bettman pointed out that her motion said that “in the event that the property become surplus.” Mr. Zelenka asked what leverage the City had on EWEB to let the City manage the planning process when the City had no option yet on the property. Ms. Bettman clarified that the motion asked for the City Manager to bring a proposal back to the council. She said that this would give the council the opportunity to ask for additional information such as how other jurisdictions had managed transfers of public land. She said that this was not EWEB’s land but that it was public land. She said that EWEB had jurisdiction over the land and the City had first right of refusal. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 10 Work Session