My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 02/12/07 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2007
>
CC Minutes - 02/12/07 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 10:28:24 AM
Creation date
5/17/2007 10:27:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/12/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
to the council that the board also understood that the land was in public domain and that the best and highest <br />value of the property included not only the economic return but also what was best for the community in <br />terms of opening up access to the river. Mr. Simpson said that he originally pushed to keep the EWEB <br />headquarters building in operation at its current site and sell just the industrial portion of the EWEB site; he <br />saw it naively in terms of the greatest dollar value. He said that over the last year he had come to <br />understand that the value included much more than that. He said that the council could trust the EWEB <br />commissioners to understand those values of balance. <br /> <br />Mr. Simpson said he had a constituent suggest that the City Hall might be located on the EWEB property. <br />He said that he would like to hear the council’s perspective on what might be the make-up of the Riverfront <br />Advisory Team. <br /> <br />Mr. Berggren said that this had been a learning experience for him and that he had become aware of the <br />approval role that the council would play in the process. He said that it had become very clear that there <br />would be no value for EWEB to spend money and go through a process if that process did not engage the <br />City’s interest in an authentic and diverse way. He repeated that there was no value in the board doing <br />something that would not lead to the council being able to approve the master plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Berggren spoke about the two bodies having the same constituency and the EWEB commissioners’ <br />awareness of the affect this process could have on rates. He used the metaphor of having money in the left <br />pocket and the right pocket, explaining that running out of money in one pocket to buy needed services could <br />impact a certain group of constituents, depending on who bore the cost. He said that while he and the board <br />understood and recognized the diversity of value, they would have trouble reconciling that diversity without <br />the process and the collaboration to find the balance point to treat both “pockets” in an equitable way. <br /> <br />Mr. Berggren said that it sounded to him as if the City’s interest in buying the property had become a <br />metaphor for controlling the process. He acknowledged that he could be wrong. He said that somehow the <br />option to purchase was a control fulcrum. He said that he thought that there were some trust issues to work <br />through but he assured the council that from the board’s perspective, there was no value for the board to do <br />something that was not trustworthy, artful, and complete in creating a master plan. Otherwise, the board <br />would have wasted a lot of time and money. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown thanked Mr. Berggren for his comments. He said that if the property was designated all open <br />space, EWEB’s rate payers would pay for the space; if it was not, the general tax payers would pay. He <br />said that someone was going to pay whether it was through property taxes or utility rates. He said that there <br />was a creative way similar to the Cottage Grove project. He said that through a collaborative process of the <br />minds in the community, a way could be found to maximize the value of the property and protect the <br />community asset. He said that he was not afraid of who did the process; but, whoever did it needed to have <br />a vested financial interest in it. He said that, otherwise the only motivation would be to make it a public <br />asset and the burden would be balanced on the backs of the rate payers. He said that would not be fair to <br />the rate payers, especially those who struggled to pay for basic needs. He said that everyone involved had to <br />make it work and that he was willing to participate to make it work. He said that he was still undecided as <br />to who should lead the process but emphasized that it had to work and that it would work. He thought that <br />it would be better to find resolution than fight. <br /> <br />Mr. Menegat said that he supported a collaborative process but, as a member of the board, he would be <br />reluctant to pass his duty or responsibility to proceed with this and to manage it on to someone else. He said <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 13 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.