CC Minutes - 05/30/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Zelenka remarked that sharing selection of the advisory team and consultant could enhance the process and ensure inclusion of all of the perspectives that council and board members wanted to see. He under- stood EWEB’s desire to have as much upfront agreement with the council as possible and thought that sharing selection would be a good start. He perceived the process as similar to a refinement plan where City staff made their expertise and professionalism available to guide the process. He supported the involvement of City staff to provide the land use and other expertise that EWEB staff would need. Mr. Poling felt that Ms. Ortiz had characterized the policy issues accurately; staff was aware of the council’s policy and was there to make sure they were followed, not to change them. He said the motion to direct staff to develop an MOU for the council’s consideration was a good move forward while legal counsel was preparing guidance for the council’s involvement in the process. Mr. Berggren commented that it was less important what the process was called than that both bodies shared an understanding and agreement about it. He was comfortable taking the suggestions from Mr. Zelenka to the EWEB Board for consideration and as a result of the discussion had a better understanding of the line between policy and process and could present that to the board with some advocacy. Ms. Bettman stated that she did not have any objections to Mr. Zelenka’s suggested for a shared selection approach, but did not want the council to put resources into a process as that became a tacit partnership. She pointed out that the first and second options in the AIS were responsive to the council’s direction, but the third option for an EWEB-managed process was not, although that was prompted by legal advice about the quasi-judicial process. She appreciated that EWEB had tried to be responsive but the process had changed because of legal problems. She said the council had general policies and it was not the purview of staff to interpret those unless it requested direction from the council. She supported staff providing technical assistance, as that would be available to anyone. She asked for a response from EWEB Board members to a public message from EWEB that it was willing to offer the City a place at the table but had no intention of giving up the lead role. She said EWEB should take a lead in the master planning process and it was the council’s decision whether or not to approve the plan. She asked if there had been a change in EWEB’s sentiment regarding taking the lead role. Commissioner Farmer agreed that EWEB had to take the lead in master planning and present the plan to the council for approval. Vice President Simpson thanked staff from the City and EWEB for their cooperative and collaborative approach to working together. He said collaboration simply meant working together and he favored that approach as it would best serve the community. He favored working with the council to select an advisory team and consultant and reducing the MOU to a process-only document. He said it was important to realize that EWEB was a tremendous asset to the community as a public utility and the benefit was significantly greater than if it was a for-profit utility. He looked forward to the council’s guidance and the staff’s leadership and expertise to assist EWEB in the master planning process. Vice President Simpson acknowledged that EWEB would be working toward a master plan that would provide adequate financial value to EWEB so that facilities could be moved from the riverfront property to a more appropriate location. He said the highest possible value was simply one consideration and others included community interests, design criteria and relationship to the Downtown Plan. He said that existing plans and policies would provide guidance to EWEB about what the City wanted. He was disappointed that MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 30, 2007 Page 6 Work Session