CC Minutes - 02/12/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

that the board would be discussing this further and that information might come forward to change his mind, but that at this point he would be reluctant to approve a co-managed process. Mr. Lanning said that he also would be reluctant to approve a co-managed process. He said that the board had every interest in having a master plan in a timely way that would be supported by the City. He said that he was very much for a collaborative process done in a timely way. Ms. Bettman addressed comments from Mr. Berggren. She quoted from an e-mail she received from the City Manager in response to a question she posed: What does the manager view as benefits for the City of the site’s acquisition? The city’s acquisition of the EWEB property would give the city the maximum amount of control over the future redevelopment of the property. Based on preliminary comments from our attorney, it appears that the master plan would need to be completed before approval of any lot line adjustments prior to the completion of a sale. Ms. Bettman said that in a lot of ways she thought that it was in the City’s best interest to manage or co- manage the process. She added that the City had more experience managing large redevelopment proposals. She repeated that EWEB was committed to moving and that once it was gone, the property would become part of the City’s downtown giving the City a vested interest in the outcome. She said that the motion provided options for a City-managed process and a co-managed process and that both would be collabora- tive. Mr. Pryor said that he was surprised there was no support from the EWEB commissioners for the co- managed process. He said that he was not hearing a lot of support for either option in the motion. He said that gave him pause in terms of moving down a road that did not have much benefit at the end. He said he would have hoped that a co-managed process would have been a demonstration of partnership. He said that it was unfortunate there was not a lot of interest in that. He said that he recognized jurisdictional or authority issues and still hoped that the two bodies could get to a joint process. He said that he would leave his friendly amendment with the hope that the City would bring back a joint process which EWEB could accept with a lot of trust issues being overcome. He noted that early partnerships always had a lot of trust issues. He said that he was optimistic that those trust issues could be overcome. Mr. Clark said that it seemed as if there was not consensus and that perhaps some more discussion would be helpful. Mr. Zelenka said that he was hoping to make a partnership in the planning process. He said that he would caution the EWEB commissioners from going off on their own given the role that the City would play. He said that all the interests needed to be at the table. He pointed out that this was a land use process more than it was a facilities planning process and that the City had a lot of experience in this. He said that if the project was to build a power plant there, he would recommend that EWEB lead the process. He said that was not the project and that the City would bring more expertise to a redevelopment project. Mr. Zelenka said that in the end he did not think that the City would necessarily have to buy the property if the process worked out right. He added that in the end the City still would have a giant lever of being able to have the option and potentially delaying the process. He said that did not seem like a very fruitful way to go. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 14 Work Session