Item A: Joint Work Session with EWEB Board

Home Browse Search

adjustments required to legally separate the parcels for sale are land use applications and cannot be approved until the master plan is approved. If the City chooses to acquire all or a portion of the property, currently available urban renewal revenues would be insufficient. In all likelihood, general obligation bonds, requiring a public vote for approval, would need to be issued to generate adequate funds to purchase the property. The timing of any purchase would need to be related to the availability of funds. If the City Manager does not request negotiations, or a purchase and sale agreement is not signed between the City and EWEB within five years, EWEB may dispose of the property in any manner it deems appropriate. The City may also choose to waive its right to purchase the site prior to the end of the option period. In that case, EWEB could proceed with master planning and land use applications, while determining a price for the property and marketing it to a private purchaser. 3. Master Planning Process There are a number of alternatives for the master planning process. Working together, City and EWEB staff developed three possibilities, including a City-managed process (Path A), a co-managed process (Path B), and an EWEB-managed process (Path C), as discussed below. Paths A and B were developed at the direction of City Council on February 12, 2007, in consultation with EWEB staff; Path C was developed by EWEB staff, in consultation with City staff. Path C is supported by the EWEB Board and recommended by staff from both organizations. Path A - City Managed Process Prior to the sale and re-use of the riverfront property, a number of land use applications must be approved in addition to the master plan, including a metro plan amendment and rezoning of the property. Based on the City Attorney’s interpretation, since the Metro Plan amendment must be approved by City Council, City Council should not be involved in developing a plan that will later come before the council in a quasi-judicial land use process. While City staff could manage the master plan process, the role that City Councilors can play in the development of the master plan is constrained. Path B - Co-managed Process The opportunity for a jointly-led master plan process is similarly limited by City Council’s quasi-judicial role. Elected officials could not participate in the development, and later the review, of a master plan and the related Metro Plan amendment. However, the City could partner in the hiring of a consultant and the appointing of citizen members to an advisory committee. The advisory committee would consider master plan concepts and make recommendations about the other required land use applications. The advisory committee would be advisory to staff and the EWEB Board, but not to the City Council. While Path B has drawbacks due to the lack of council participation, the City could work with EWEB to design a thoughtful public involvement process. Path C - EWEB-managed Collaborative Process (see Attachment B) An EWEB-managed process would be very similar to a co-managed process, with the caveat that the citizen committee would be advisory to the EWEB Board. The advisory committee would consider tasks such as consultant selection, master plan concepts, and public involvement workshops and would make recommendations to the EWEB Board. The EWEB Board would therefore remain the decision- making body on the draft master plan presented to City Council for review and approval. Path C could provide significant community involvement opportunities. EWEB would retain the ability to authorize L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070530\S070530A.doc