CC Minutes - 05/30/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

council would be making a quasi-judicial decision, issues related to ex parte communication and bias could be raised if elected officials participated in developing a product on which they would be required to make a decision. Mayor Piercy asked if the council could be involved in appointment of the advisory team or selection of a consultant. Mr. Klein said that was not a problem as long as it was not tied to design of the master plan or land use components of the process. Commissioner Lanning thanked staff for their efforts to create an opportunity to move forward in a collaborative way. He assured Ms. Bettman that EWEB was thinking not just of the monetary issues, but how the community would be affected. He hoped to move forward in a collaborative way and avoid problems later in the process. He asked that issues and concerns be raised now rather than later. Mr. Poling echoed Commissioner Lanning’s remarks. He was pleased to see two governmental bodies working together to resolve issues. He asked if the revised collaborative approach set forth in Attachment B to the AIS reflected any of the concerns raised by Ms. Bettman. Mr. Klein said he would research that issue. Mr. Poling liked the approach as it was well thought out, had good public involvement and a number of points for checking in with the council. He hoped to see the process move forward. Ms. Laurence said that staff would incorporate input from councilors and commissioners, as well as staff analysis, when the MOU was developed. Ms. Bettman raised several concerns regarding policy issues in the proposed process. She said determining a time limit for reaching an agreement and agreeing that process milestones were decision points and exit ramps went beyond technical assistance. She felt the technical assistance City staff might provide to EWEB should be no different than any other quasi-judicial process, such as the one for the hospital. She identified a number of items that she perceived as major policy decisions, such as clarifying the nature of mixed use development and exempting property sale from future City real property value-added charges. She pointed out a number of other policy decisions points and emphasized that the process diverged considerably from other quasi-judicial proceedings. Regarding whether there were aspects of Attachment B that could give rise to remand of the council’s action, Mr. Klein said that would have to be based on a claim of bias or ex parte communications. He said that many items in Attachment B were not actions required of councilors or the mayor; they were actions for staff and those would not give rise to claims of bias or ex parte communications. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that there were a number of policy issues in the recommended approach and it was not a typical quasi-judicial process because normally City staff was not involved in an application that would be submitted to the City. He distinguished the legal limitation from the policy questions and said that the council had the legal authority to authorize staff to be involved in the process. He noted the council could not agree, as part of the MOU, to exempt anything related to a future legislative action, such as exempting the property from future City real property value added charge as this council could not bind a future council. He said other than that issue, the council had the legal authority to authorize staff and the discussion should focus on whether the council wished to do so. Mr. Berggren said from EWEB’s perspective the list of opportunity areas included in the process did represent a unique approach, which was demanded by a unique piece of property. He said that EWEB was MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 30, 2007 Page 3 Work Session