CC Minutes - 05/30/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

? respects the City Council’s sole authority to have the final word in approval of the master plan, ? respects EWEB’s sole authority for disposal of utility property, ? establishes an effective community involvement process, and ? adheres to applicable codes, regulations and laws. Mr. Oberle drew attention to details of the process that were contained in the agenda packet. He said there were three phases: prelude to the master plan, creation of the master plan and implementation of the master plan. He provided a brief overview of the phases and noted that some adjustment might be necessary to achieve efficiencies in the process. City Manager Dennis Taylor stated that in February 2007, the council directed staff to develop two paths: one a City-managed process and one a co-managed process. He said staff was jointly recommending consideration of an EWEB-managed process that would be very similar to a co-managed process. He asked City Planner Nan Laurence to highlight issues that would be the basis of the council and board discussion. Ms. Laurence said the focus was on the master planning process and after extensive staff analysis of City- managed and co-managed processes and consultation with legal counsel, staff developed and was recom- mending a third option, which was an EWEB-managed collaborative process. She said limitations on the council’s participation due to the council’s later involvement in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) amendment decision were the reason for the recommendation. She said the intent was for a process that was as collaborative and open to public participation as possible and asked for direction to staff to prepare a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) laying out the process and bring an outline of the MOU back to another work session. Mayor Piercy asked if the City and EWEB would collaborate on appointing an advisory team and hiring a consultant. Mr. Oberle said that developing a list of names for the committee would be collaborative; the EWEB board would be responsible for selecting committee members and hiring the consultant. Ms. Bettman thanked EWEB for its efforts to be responsive to the council’s motion. She said the law provided clarity and the fact that it was a quasi-judicial process trumped everything. She was willing to support the recommendation of both staffs and take that further by removing the reference to collaboration altogether. She said many issues in the MOU could prejudice final quasi-judicial action. She felt that the City should only provide technical assistance and cooperation in the process and staff should not be in the position of working on policy issues. She said the MOU should only address the responsibility for resources and the City’s willingness to provide technical assistance. She thought the other items were not appropriate in a quasi-judicial proceeding. Ms. Bettman said with respect to acquiring the property, there was a clearly defined, legal process for the City to follow once EWEB determined whether the property was surplus. She said whatever EWEB decided in consultation with the community, the plan would come before the council and undergo a public process; the council would review the record and make a quasi-judicial decision. She appreciated efforts to include the City in the process, but given the quasi-judicial nature of the issue, it was inappropriate. She encour- aged the EWEB board to consider the property as more than just something that belonged to them, the value of which had to be maximized. She said a better approach was to think of it in terms of a resource that was managed for the public good. City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that his advice to staff regarding the ability of the council to become involved in the collaborative process was the same as Ms. Bettman’s comments. He said because the MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 30, 2007 Page 2 Work Session