Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly asked the manager “who was asleep at the switch?” He said the project had been in the works for months and the issue of the requirements for the noncompetitive bid had been raised more than once. He found it painful that staff identified a major legal requirement that was not being met the night before the council was scheduled to take action. Ms. Taylor suggested that the morality of the situation was more important than the legality. She thought the public should be involved in any City decision regarding the development. Taking action at this time would eliminate other possibilities, such as the proposal forwarded by the University of Oregon class for connecting the Parks Blocks to the river. She thought the council was making big decisions without public involvement as people did not know what was going on. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that it would be silly to stop the alley vacation so far into the process. Ms. Taylor said she would be out of town at a National League of Cities committee meeting on March 13 and asked that action on the competitive bid issue be postponed. She preferred that the hearing be postponed until after the council break. She said that the council should not take action at the public hearing and allow the public to make comments following the hearing so they could respond to what was said. Mr. Klein clarified that the council would not be taking action at the public hearing, but at the work session following the hearing. Mr. Poling thought the Whole Foods project worthwhile whether it included a City-owned parking garage built without a competitive bid or not. He believed the issue before the council was the public process and the order in which action occurred. He agreed the public hearing should be held before the council took action and encouraged the council to follow the letter of the law to avoid future litigation. Mr. Pryor asked what effect a delay would have on the project. Ms. Laurence said that staff worked closely with the developers, who established time lines for the project within its agreement with Whole Foods. She thought there was a possibility that the City’s participation could be threatened by delay. Ms. Laurence believed the developers were seeking City support for the integrated concept. Mr. Pryor did not think the delay created by the public hearing was significant and suggested it would allow time for the community to voice its support for the project. He was concerned about the public perception of acting now, but wanted to ensure that the motion was not a way to drag out the process. He supported it with the expectation that the council would act on the issue immediately after the public hearing. With regard to the exemption, Mr. Pryor said he had recently been through that process and was not concerned about it, as it was not intended to circumvent bargaining or legal requirements. It was a means to find cost savings through partnerships, which, in his experience, worked. However, he voiced support for the motion because he wanted to hear from the public. Ms. Ortiz also supported the motion. She shared Mr. Kelly’s concern about the legal issue related to the exemption and was frustrated that the issue was raised by a councilor doing her homework instead of by staff. She also supported the project and thought it doable. She said she was “just a very simple person who wanted to come here and work” and wanted to do so in a timely fashion, but when she had to work backwards, she did not think it boded well for the community. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments. Mr. Kelly underscored the fact that the motion called for action at the work session following the public hearing, which he thought appropriate. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting