Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

evening in a halfway dark place. She did not understand why the park had been closed in the first place instead of making enough efforts to find a way to keep it open. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the park was in his ward and neighborhood and, in the years prior to its closure a decade ago, there were Herculean efforts to try to keep it open. He said the park had been the number one priority of the West University Neighborhood Association since it was reconstituted two years ago and was a major interest of the neighborhood even before that time as it was a densely populated area without a neighborhood park. On the issue of haste, he said there were times when an opportunity requiring a response presented itself and that was the current situation; while there was a great deal of interest in having the park reopened, no one previously presented an idea that would accomplish that. He had some questions regarding details of the agreement and might offer motions to address those after a round of discussion. Referring to item 2.F in the agreement that stated the owners would have control over both properties during construction, Mr. Poling asked if there was a mechanism in place to ensure that existing trees that would be in the park area once the proposed changes were made, as well as brickwork now in the park, would be preserved and protected. Public Works landscape architect Robin Hostick said that could be addressed in the agreement once it was determined what features should be preserved. Mr. Poling also expressed reservations about item 2.G that gave the Quinneys the right of first refusal to purchase the property if the City decided to sell the reconfigured park in the future. He said the park should be sold to the highest bidder instead of giving someone that advantage. He asked if removing the provision would kill the deal. Mr. Hostick said the property owner would have to answer that question. He thought the right of first refusal provision would allow the property owner to meet any fair, legitimate bid proposed for the park. Mr. Poling requested clarification of item 4 relating to alley assessments. Mr. Hostick explained that the City would be assessed approximately $37,000 for alley construction in the current configuration. He said that if the trade was executed and the Quinneys received ownership of the portion of the property that abutted the alley, the City would have no assessment. However, the park in public ownership was counted as ten and all of the other owners on the block counted as one; if that were redistributed and the park was in private ownership and counted as one, the assessment for all property owners on the block would increase. Mr. Lidz added that the other property owners on the block would pay a higher assessment under the new configuration and the provision in the agreement was intended to prevent that by freezing the assessment as it would have been without the trade. Mr. Pape stated that he supported opening the park again. He disclosed that he was a good friend of Bob and Leslie Quinney and asked if that presented a conflict of interest given that the trade would increase the value of the Quinneys' property. Mr. Lidz replied that friendship would not create a conflict of interest and noted that the Quinneys' property value would increase by approximately $26,000 in the new configuration. Ms. Ortiz remarked that she worked in the West University neighborhood and parking along the old park when it was still open was scary. She agreed that the presence of a new park in the neighborhood was desirable and she supported the trade. Ms. Bettman said she supported reopening of the park although she did not think it would have all of the benefits the neighborhood assumed it would because it would still subject to the issues that affected many urban parks. She said the agreement contained benefits for the developer to which she could not agree. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 28, 2005 Page 6