CC Minutes - 03/16/11 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor believed that the district and City had common interests but there was also an issue of authority. The council did not have authority over the stadium property. The council could express interest in the disposition of the property but could not tell the school district what to do with it. He urged a thoughtful approach based on what the council believed what the long -term goal for the property should be. While he was willing to discuss that topic with the board, he would stop short of trying to exercise any authoritative role. Mr. Pryor pointed out to Mr. Brown that geographically, Ward 1 was much smaller than Ward 8, but had 76 acres of parks in the neighborhood and community category while Ward 8 had 29 acres of such parks. Mr. Brown acknowledged the City had no legal authority but lie believed it had moral authority. He cited a strategy under the Pi lar 5 of the Envision Eugene process, "Protect, Repair, and Enhance Neighborhood Livability," which read "Recognize the value that that historic properties contribute to community character and livability, and work to preserve those properties." He said the statement reflected the intent of his proposed motion. Mr. Brown believed the stadium was a "gem." He reiterated that the motion did not commit the City to the purchase or lease of the stadium and did not tell the district what to do. However, he did not think the district wanted to act against the will of the community. Mr. Brown said the outcome of the proposed process was not a given as there were many interests involved. He wanted to preserve the stadium for future generations. Mr. Clark questioned the fairness of the proposed process to those who responded to the RFP. He said he could support a reworded motion that established a council committee to look at all the potential options. He suggested one option might be a trade of the City -owned golf course for the stadium. Mr. Farr pointed out the City had a form of authority in the matter in that it had to approve any zone change from Public Land to facilitate commercial development on the site. He supported the motion Mr. Brown had prepared and hoped other councilors would support a reworded motion that eliminated concerns about the authority issue. He wanted any site redevelopment to occur deliberately. Ms. Ortiz said she was willing to support the motion if the district reopened the RFP process. Otherwise, she did not think such a process would be fair to those who responded to the UP on time. If the district was not willing to do so, she feared the process would be a waste of staff time. She agreed with Mr. Poling about the composition of the proposed committee. Mr. Zelenka supported everything that had been said in support of Mr. Brown's proposal. He did not perceive the motion as usurping the district's authority but said he could support a reworded motion that would garner more council support. He offered to participate on any committee formed to develop a counterproposal to the proposals that did not preserve the stadium. Mr. Pryor appreciated Mr. Farr's remarks about the City's authority over zoning. He also believed that Ms. Ortiz raised good points. He would be concerned if the committee process interfered with the board's decision - making process, and suggested that the motion be restated as a request to the district. He supported City involvement in the question of the disposition of the property but preferred that occurred in collaboration with the district. He was reluctant to create a committee now without knowing more about how it fit into the district's process. Mr. Brown believed that the district would welcome the City's input, particularly after the City Council had proposed a school income tax. He did not think the district would see the motion as hostile. MINUTES— Eugene City Council March 16, 2011 Page 5 Work Session