Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Klein felt the council could not ask the City Manager to renegotiate with the University if they wanted <br />to act immediately on the matter, particularly in light of the fact that staff’s evaluations had been deemed to <br />be an effective determination of the value of the properties. <br />Mr. Clark’s inclination was to trust the staff’s recommendation with regard to the timing of the process and <br />felt the University would be highly inclined to appeal any decisions the council might make to readjust the <br />special assessment values. <br />Mr. Pryor appreciated the conversation around the property vacations, but felt uncomfortable that the tenor <br />of the conversations the council had been conducting with the University might make it difficult to move <br />beyond the matter in the future. He was uncomfortable using the council and City’s authority as leverage <br />against the University in this matter. <br />Ms. Solomon reminded the council they had had the Basis of Value report since April 14, 2008, and <br />objected to Ms. Bettman’s motion coming up in the eleventh hour. She was uncomfortable that the <br />University had not had the opportunity to weigh in on the discussion, and felt the council had not acted with <br />full transparency in the matter. <br />Ms. Solomon asked Mr. Ruiz how many more decision points there would be for the council in terms of <br />having the arena built. Mr. Ruiz answered that the property vacations matter before the council was <br />probably the last formal step and that any other decisions regarding the planning and construction of the <br />arena would be taken care of through other land use action channels. <br />Ms. Solomon indicated she would not support Ms. Bettman’s motion for the reasons she had previously <br />stated. <br />Ms. Taylor asked Klein what the constitutional problems would be in asking the University for more money, <br />particularly since it was her understanding that the council could pull out of the project altogether with no <br />resultant legal difficulties. Mr. Klein confirmed that it would not pose a constitutional problem for the <br />council to determine it would not be in the public’s interest to vacate the properties, and cited a Ninth <br />Circuit Court case of the University of Oregon Foundation versus the City of Klamath Falls wherein that <br />city had agreed to vacate a property and then asked the foundation for further remunerations regarding <br />geothermal wells. He said the court’s determination was that the city’s actions were unconstitutional <br />because it indicated the city was treating the applicant differently than other applicants. <br />Mr. Klein could not say for certain the City would lose on appeal if Ms. Bettman’s motion was passed and <br />that he had not undertaken any sort of constitutional analysis in that regard, but he said the council would <br />certainly be treating the University differently than any other applicant who might apply for a property <br />vacation. <br />Mr. Klein, responding to a request for further clarification from Ms. Taylor, confirmed that the City could <br />most likely refuse to vacate the properties altogether on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest <br />to do so. <br />Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Klein if the council could indeed ask the City Manager to renegotiate with the <br />University. Mr. Klein said that, only if they did not approve Ms. Bettman’s motion today, they could <br />conceivably say what was before them was not in the public interest and ask the City Manager to renegoti- <br />ate. Ms. Taylor averred this was precisely the problem with rushing through the process. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />