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