Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/12/07 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 12, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She welcomed everyone the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) Commissioners and said that they would be introduced at the beginning of the workshop. Mayor Piercy acknowledged and thanked Richie Weinman and Pearl Wolfe for their work to organize Project HomelessConnect. She also thanked members of the community who participated in the event. Mayor Piercy said that the event was incredible noting that more than 1,000 homeless people were served. She identified many services provided such as bike repair, pet care, and hair cuts. Mayor Piercy announced that a Neighborhood Summit would take place on February 17. She said that the Asian Celebration would also begin on February 17, noting that this was an opportunity for celebrating the Asian community and their cultural gifts to the City. She acknowledged the River Road Celebration that happened earlier in the month and described it as a wonderfully organized event. Mayor Piercy read a letter from the mayor of Chinju, South Korea, one of Eugene’s sister cities, which thanked the City of Eugene for its hospitality to students from Chinju who had visited and stayed with local citizens. He said that he and his city would extend the same hospitality to students from Eugene who would visit Chinju in July 2007. Mayor Piercy expressed sadness and feelings of loss for the entire city because of the deaths of two members of the Eugene Symphony who were killed in a car accident on February 11. She said that their deaths were a big loss to those who loved them and for the entire community. Ms. Ortiz said that she also attended the Project HomelessConnect event for several hours. She described the experience as amazing, especially the way in which all people were acknowledged and treated with dignity and respect. Ms. Ortiz said that she had taped a radio advertisement with County Commissioner Bobby Green supporting the Earned Income Tax Credit. Ms. Ortiz said that she attended a Police Commission meeting with Mr. Poling. She shared that she was working on the Domestic Violence Subcommittee, which was working on sexual assault, partner violence, child abuse, and neglect. She said that the subcommittee would be reaching MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 1 Work Session out to stakeholders for feedback. Ms. Ortiz commented that this year the Asian Festival was falling on the Lunar New Year, which made it a special weekend. She added that Monday, February 19, was the Day of Remembrance for Asian Americans who were interned in Eugene. She said that the dedication of the memorial would be at noon at the Hult Center. Ms. Bettman echoed Mayor Piercy’s gratitude to the staff and community members who volunteered for the Project HomelessConnect event. Mr. Poling said that his first meeting of the Police Commission was exciting. He said that the commission- ers seemed to be working well together and he was glad to be a part of their work. He said that the Police Commission would also be working on use-of-force and policies and procedures. Ms. Taylor said that she also attended the Project HomelessConnect event and experienced personally the dignified and respectful treatment given to those participating. Ms. Taylor commented on the downtown development proposals as she would not be in attendance at the meeting at which it was discussed. She said that she would be asking for a delay on the vote unless she could join the council by phone. She said that the Bean Development sounded good to her because the proposal called for the rehabilitation of a couple of buildings and filling the Aster site on Willamette Street. She said that she thought that it was important to remove the threat from businesses that were thriving such as John Henry’s, the Horsehead, the Tango Center, Taco Time, etc. She said that it was to the City’s advantage to foster, care for, and encourage businesses that were working. She said that the City should help the Farmer’s Market to relocate if something was done with the Washburn Building. Ms. Taylor said that the City should get a guarantee that any new development would not tear down buildings and leave holes. She concluded by saying that the offer to renovate was excellent. Ms. Taylor mentioned the new truck stop that would help trucks clean up, use less fuel, and provide other services for trucks. She pointed out that this started through Lane Regional Air Protection Agency. Mr. Zelenka also echoed the comments made about the Project HomelessConnect event. He said that it was a very heartfelt experience for him to see over 300 volunteers and more than 1,000 people attending. He noted that it was “one-stop shopping” for people to get through a lot of services that might take them weeks to get to otherwise. Mr. Zelenka said that he attended the Franklin Corridor AIA Workshop on February 3. He said that it was well attended and that people were given the opportunity to design different areas of the Franklin Corridor. He said that it was a great kick-off for an ongoing project. Mr. Zelenka said that he attended the Eugene 08 reception, which was a kick-off to get the business community involved in the Eugene Olympic Trials. He said that it was a great event. Mr. Clark said that he was proud to attend the Fire & EMS Department’s Awards and Promotions ceremony. He said that it was a wonderful event and commented that he was proud of the City Manager’s choice for Fire Chief. Mr. Clark said that he attended the Chamber of Commerce Celebration Business Dinner. He said that he enjoyed sitting with people from Golden Temple and hearing Kartar Khalsa’s presentation about sustainability. Mr. Clark said that he also attended the Eugene 08 event. He said that the Olympic Trials should be a world-class event. Mr. Clark congratulated the organizers of the River Road Celebration. He said that he also attended the Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 2 Work Session (CVALCO) retreat at which the creation and formation of a sports commission was discussed, as well as the creation of a new, better and more appropriately located visitors’ center. Mr. Pryor apologized for missing the Budget Committee meeting. He said that he was ill but that he watched it on TV and had enjoyed the discussion very much. He said that he also missed the Project HomelessConnect event due to his illness, but heard positive feedback. Mr. Pryor said that he attended the 2007 Economic Forecast and found it very interesting. He said that he enjoyed former Governor John Kitzhaber’s presentation. Mr. Pryor said that he attended a West Eugene Forum meeting, a recently formed group that came together to talk about transportation solutions in West Eugene. He said that he was impressed with the diverse group of people and that he would continue to work with them. He said that the group handed out copies of a Practical Guide to Consensus. Mr. Pryor said that the Transportation Subcommittee had a very good first meeting, and that the Public Works staff did a great job in bringing the group together and getting it moving. Mr. Zelenka said that after a discussion about library services, he researched a file from former Councilor David Kelly titled The City Sponsored Levy Unbiased Publication that stated the following: City Council places Measure 2011 on the ballot to ask voters if the City should continue Eugene Public Library’s current level of services with funding in part for the levy. He pointed out this what was promised in terms of support for the library. City Manager Dennis Taylor applauded the councilor’s reports and all the work that councilors and City staff were doing together as well as cross organizationally. He also commented on the Project Homeless- Connect event, noting that conversations took place throughout the day about how to work together to end homelessness in the community. He said that the project provided one-stop shopping for benefit programs, health programs, medical care, immunizations, dental care, vision care, HIV testing, hair cuts, bike repair, veterinary care, library cards, legal assistance, etc. He reported that the culinary students from Lane Community College, along with FOOD for Lane County, provided breakfast and lunch for the participants. He said that every attendee took away gifts of hygiene kits, blankets, coats, socks, and food boxes. He said that 42 Burley bike trailers were given away and Lane Transit District (LTD) offered free transportation to and from the event, with vouchers to schedule future appointments. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that because of the event, hundreds of people would receive housing and future medical and dental attention. He said that it was an example of the community coming together and working together. He added that he thought this was a nice event to lead into the meeting. Mayor Piercy also thanked the City Councilors for all the meetings they had been attending and she thanked Ms. Ortiz, in particular, for leading two meetings while she was gone. Mayor Piercy suggested that if the Project HomelessConnect event was held again, that she and the councilors try to make themselves available for the entire day in order to hear from people attending the event. B. JOINT WORK SESSION: Discussion of Planning Process for Eugene Water & Electric Board Riverfront Property Mayor Piercy welcomed EWEB Board Chair, Melvin Menegat, EWEB General Manager Randy Berggren, EWEB Commissioners, and EWEB staff. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Menegat opened the EWEB work session at 5:50 p.m. The EWEB Commissioners, John Brown (commissioner-at-large), John Simpson (wards 1 and 8), Ron Farmer (wards 4 and 5), and Patrick Lanning (wards 2 and 3) were in attendance. City Manager Dennis Taylor welcomed the commissioners. He said that he, Mr. Berggren, Mayor Piercy, and Mr. Menegat met regularly and that he was glad to have this opportunity for a joint meeting. He noted that the councilors had walked around the site in question in preparation for the discussion. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that City staff, EWEB staff, he, and Mr. Berggren had met and put together a recommended approach for the two bodies to consider with regard to the joint exploration of whether, when and how the EWEB property could change. He said that this had been articulated in the agenda item summary. He said that this was a time for the councilors, EWEB commissioners, and the Mayor to have a discussion about some of the issues of concerns. He said that he hoped that the dialogue would help inform what needed to be done in the future in a coordinated and timely way. Mr. Berggren said that EWEB was there to explore with the council and to learn more to help the board decide what to do. He said that he thought that it would be important to try and create some collaborative work because it was clear that the City Council would play a significant role in the all of the critical milestones. He said that EWEB wanted to understand the perspective of the council. Mayor Piercy said that the council appreciated the last meeting with EWEB and hoped that it would be one of many more. She said that planning for the redevelopment of the EWEB riverfront property was an important topic to both organizations and to their shared constituents. She said that the riverfront property represented the history and identity of the community and was the legacy to the future. Mayor Piercy said that by working together, the two organizations could have a critical impact on one of the most special places in the community: a place to touch the river. She said that the two bodies needed to be thoughtful and collaborative so that in the long- and short-term their actions would bring them closer to the shared vision for the community. Mayor Piercy added that EWEB was an important part of the community. She said that EWEB was the City’s partner and was part of what made the community great. She said that the council was glad to have the commissioners there to talk about this very important issue. Mr. Menegat thanked and acknowledged staff for collaborating and for putting together the various proposals and strategies and for the ongoing collaborating that often goes unseen throughout the year. Mr. Menegat said that some of the desired outcomes for the joint meeting were: ? To get the council’s perspective on the disposition of the riverfront property and the process for moving forward with that disposition ? To develop an understanding of the positions of the City and EWEB regarding the strategies set forth in the Agenda Item Summary. Mr. Menegat noted that the board’s position regarding the disposition of the property was evolving and that support for other than Strategy 1 had been voiced. He continued: ? To have a shared understanding on each other’s interests and priorities for the site ? To further a collaborative relationship in planning work for the site Mr. Menegat said that the board had committed to moving its operations yard to the Roosevelt Site. He said that the exact parcels that would be available had not yet been determined. He said that the steam plant and MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 4 Work Session a portion of the Willamette Substation and the portion east would probably not be involved in the disposi- tion. Mr. Menegat said that the board saw value to EWEB as it related to economic value to reduce the costs of the new facility. He said that the board was looking at multi-use high density commercial and residential development consistent with the City policy. He said that the board needed some sense of certainty about the value and timing of sale in order to move forward with its plans. Mr. Menegat said that the bottom line questions were: What was the City Council’s position regarding the value of the property? Would the City be willing to purchase the property at an appraisal based on multi- use high density residential/commercial? Mayor Piercy said that the council’s interest was also in how master planning would be undertaken together. Ms. Bettman welcomed the EWEB commissioners and thanked them for joining the council for a discussion. She said that she welcomed a conversation but noted that the council had a staff recommended motion in front of them and did not have the luxury of simply having a conversation. She said that the council would have to deliberate to a conclusion. She said that this was unfortunate because she did not think there was enough time for this deliberation. Ms. Bettman asked where the money came from for EWEB’s purchase of the property in 1908 and 1998. EWEB staff member, Mike Overly, said that the property had been compiled by many pieces over many years. He said that every piece, with the exception of the original purchase in 1908, came directly from EWEB rate payer funds. He said that the 1908 purchase was made by the City of Eugene from the Willamette Valley Water Company and included the steam plant and part of the property east of the steam plant where the substation was located. He said that the property was included in the purchase of Skinner’s Butte, the reservoir and the water systems that were up there. He said that when EWEB was formed in 1911, those water properties and the debt associated with them were transferred to the new utility board. Ms. Bettman addressed Mr. Menegat’s question about the City’s position regarding the value of the property. She said that, as the council had discussed many times post-Ballot Measure 37, zoning and regulation often create value. She said that in this situation in which the City had the opportunity to up zone and adopt a Metro Plan amendment, the City would be creating value. She said that the number depended on whether it was before or after the master plan, whether it was before people were committed to transportation capacity improvements or after. She said that from the City’s point of view, this was a monumental and unprecedented redevelopment opportunity. She emphasized that this was a very important piece of property to the public and that she did not see the benefit of transferring the master planning process to EWEB. She said that for an asset this significant to the community, the City should initiate and manage the master planning process. She said that once EWEB relocated, that property would become a City asset. She said that she thought that there was wisdom in the initial agreement for the City to have first right of refusal and she thought that the City should exercise that right. She suggested a strategy that would include a mixture of Strategy 1 and Strategy 3, in which the City would declare its intent to purchase and then would include EWEB and other stakeholders in a process of doing the master planning. She said that to get the maximum value out of the property would take a huge public investment and infrastructure. Mr. Brown pointed out that Public Land (PL) could not be valued. He said that when he did the appraisal of the land several years ago, he assumed it was non-PL and used the information he received from staff in a memo that said to consider it as two-thirds commercial and one-third residential. He said that an appraiser MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 5 Work Session today would assume that the master plan had been done and that would be the “before;” the “after” value would be the same number. Mr. Brown asked if the Downtown Plan stated that the master plan would be considered as a Type 2 application, which would allow approval by the Planning Director at the applicant’s choice. He also asked if the PL zone allowed a public/private partnership. He said that if EWEB wanted to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), similar to what the City did on some of its properties, and ask for a developer to join them in a master planning process, and include the City in the planning process, it could do that. He said the basis for that statement was that EWEB had a direct financial interest in finding a timely resolution. City Planner Nan Laurence said that the Downtown Plan did state that the master planning would come in as a Type 2 Land Use Application, which would mean that it could be approved at a staff level. She said that the other applications associated with this, specifically the Metro Plan amendment would need to be approved by the council. She said it could be that all of the applications would be bundled together or could be done separately. She did think that doing a public/private partnership would be permissible in doing the master planning process. City Manager Dennis Taylor added that while EWEB could do the master planning on its own, it was the City’s recommended that there would be some advantages to collaborating without specifically saying how that would be. He repeated that if EWEB should choose to dispose of the property and undertake the master planning, it could do that wholly on its own without any involvement of the staff or the City except for the City’s role to review the master plan or the Metro Plan amendment or the zone change. He said that was one of the issues about who would participate in an advisory group. He said that the City Council and the mayor would have specific roles that they might have to play in a quasi judicial land use issue, so they would be restricted in terms of being involved in a planning process that might have some party allege bias in the future. He recommended that groups other than the elected officials who made the City Council decisions be involved in the planning process until such time as those plans were forwarded as formal applications. Mr. Brown emphasized that he wanted EWEB to move and that he had been involved in this process for years. He said that his concern was that a large portion of the property would be designated open land space for which there would be no dollar amount tied to it. He said that the solution had to be a win/win solution. He said that EWEB would be able to accept an offer which would say that, had it not been for the open space designation, it would have been C3 and therefore $30 or $40 a square foot. City Manager Dennis Taylor opined that the Mayor and City Council wanted EWEB to move in the best way. Mayor Piercy said that while she understood the board’s desire to realize a good value for the property, she thought that the board had two values to balance: the best value in terms of sale and the best value for the community as a whole. She said that the City also had to balance these values. She said that it was a matter of how to get the “best bang for our buck” for the community and how to get the best result for the community as a whole. She said that she hoped that the board would consider both of these values. Ms. Taylor said that she agreed with Ms. Bettman’s comments and did not think that the council needed to come to a conclusion tonight. Ms. Taylor said that whenever anyone mentioned commercial zoning, she thought of all the commercial space downtown that was empty. She said that she did not know how much commercial space was needed in the City. She referred to Mr. Brown’s earlier comment and asked how staff could say that the property would be one-third commercial and two-thirds residential. Mr. Brown said that he had a memorandum from previous City staff stating that. City Manager Dennis Taylor clarified that if the board declared the property surplus, he would recommend that the City use the opportunity to take the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 6 Work Session five years to do due diligence, during which time he would be engaged in negotiations with EWEB’s General Manager. He said that it would be up to both bodies to approve the sale under whatever terms and conditions and prices were the result of due diligence and the negotiating process. Ms. Taylor said that she was glad that the City Manager mentioned the five years for due diligence. She said that was not quite as urgent as tonight. Ms. Taylor asked how this would fit into the Franklin Corridor Study. Ms. Laurence explained that when the City did the Courthouse Concept Plan adopted in 2002, the City took a look at the area as the length between the university and the downtown. She said that many of those ideas, especially the transportation ideas, were adopted and were being implemented as part of the Downtown Plan. She said that she thought that there was an opportunity to look again at the riverfront and the connections to the university and make a better connection to the Franklin Corridor. She said that in 1999, the City did the Downtown Vision which was actually the downtown and the Franklin corridor vision process. She said that it seemed time to pull those threads together, particularly for this site. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Laurence said that it was a part of the Franklin Corridor. Ms. Taylor noted that a community meeting had been held about the Franklin Corridor and she hoped that the community input from that would not be ignored. Ms. Taylor said that whenever the council adopted plans, it was told that the plans were not binding. She asked City Attorney Glenn Klein if the plans were legally binding. Mr. Klein said that it depended on the kind of plan. He said that parts of the Downtown Plan, in particular those policies related to the master planning process, were binding policies. He said that there were other parts of the Downtown Plan that were aspirational goals. Ms. Taylor asked what parts of the plan were legally binding. Mr. Klein clarified that the Downtown Plan said that before property could be redeveloped, it would need to go through the master planning process. He said that the council had the legal authority to follow the process to amend the Metro Plan and could change the zoning from heavy industrial. Ms. Bettman said that she would like to see the memo that Mr. Brown mentioned that delineated non-public land use as two-thirds commercial and one-third residential. Ms. Laurence said that she had not seen the memo and that she thought that it had come from previous staff giving some assumptions that would be useful in doing the appraisal. She said that the memo was no longer binding. She said that what was binding was the policy in the Downtown Plan that stated that a master plan was required. Mr. Brown said that the memo was from the Planning Director who preceded Susan Muir. He agreed that the memo was sent for the purpose of appraising the property since PL zoned land could not be owned by private entities. Mr. Klein said while he had not seen the memo, he was assuming it was the Planning Director’s guess as to how the property might be able to be redesignated in the Metro Plan. He said that it was not, and could not be, a commitment on the part of the City because the Planning Director did not have the authority to amend the Metro Plan or to rezone inconsistent with the Metro Plan. He said that, oftentimes, appraisers would ask for recommendations on how to do an appraisal, but that it was in no way binding on the City. Ms. Bettman said that even though the Planning Director had changed, Planning staff was the same staff who had worked on the Downtown Plan. She said that she thought that the memo was a very important piece of information for the council to see. Ms. Bettman said that there were two public entities involved and that her objective was to maximize the public benefit from the piece of property, not maximize the profit from the property. She said that she thought having the City manage the master planning process was the best way to move forward since the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 7 Work Session City had the experience in doing that and had the ultimate authority over approving or disapproving of the plan. She thought that it was a better way to see that the public benefit was achieved. Ms. Ortiz said that she thought that there was still work to be done in terms of having clear direction on what EWEB wanted and what the City could do for EWEB. She encouraged the board to listen to its constituents on what direction it should be taking. She agreed with Ms. Bettman’s comments about achieving the maximum benefit for the public. She said that the river was priceless and that as much of the adjoining property as possible should be kept for public access. Mr. Clark cited a recent deal in which the City of Cottage Grove acquired a golf course. He said that in the process, the City created a win/win for everyone involved. He noted that the two entities shared constituents and he encouraged everyone to look for the way to serve the highest good for the citizens while at the same time having the lowest impact on rate payers and tax payers. He said that he thought that there were some goals that the City had that could be served by some creative and innovative thinking. He encouraged staff to do that. He also suggested that no formal steps be taken at the meeting, but that an ongoing conversation be continued in which something innovative and new could be created to serve people for a long time. He encouraged the two bodies to work together. Mr. Pryor said that he thought that there could be a win/win in this situation. He said that, in particular, he did not want the public to be a loser in this. He said that his sense was that EWEB did not have a lot of time and that he was reluctant to begin a planning process for an infinite amount of time. He said that he was exaggerating to make the point that the process needed to be completed in a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Farmer said that while he thought that everyone on the EWEB Board believed that there were higher and better uses for the property than its current use, that was not why EWEB was moving. He said that the real reason for moving was for EWEB’s functional operational capacity. He said that the board was committed to move; but if it could not make it work financially, it would not be able to move. He said that when the projected costs of the project reached $98 million, the board asked the architects to find a way to reduce the costs. Mr. Farmer said that part of the plan had always been to realize as much value out of the property as possible in order to make the move work. He said that the greatest value would be for high- density commercial or high-density residential and that the board’s ability to gain that value would determine whether or not it would move. He said that if EWEB could not get that value, it might end up staying where it was and using the property for EWEB use. He said that it was urgent to try and move forward. Mr. Farmer said that, personally, when he thought of the downtown core, he believed strongly in high- density commercial and high-density residential zoning when appropriate. He said that any great city core had that. He said that did not mean that he did not value open space. He repeated that EWEB needed the value of the property to be able to move. Mr. Farmer said that the City Council could look at it from a different perspective and could place value on having open space. He again expressed that his main goal was to realize the most financial value from the property, not what the City decided to do with the property after it purchased it. He did acknowledge that he might even applaud the City if it made the land open space. Mr. Lanning said that this was not a new issue for EWEB and that he had been involved in these discussions since 2000. He said that it had been his experience in working with complex groups, that the quickest way to find a solution was to have a collaborative process that had everyone at the table at the same time. He said that he was very excited that Strategy 1 brought everyone to the table. He said that he heard from MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 8 Work Session constituents who requested of him not to let this get drowned into a process that would go on forever. He said that EWEB had a real interest in that also. He said that having everyone at the table made sense to him. He said that he hoped that this would be given consideration. Mr. Poling asked if there was any idea of how long the master planning process would take. Ms. Laurence said that the minimum time would be six months to nine months. She said that the factor expanding the time had to do with how participatory the process was and how quickly a broad agreement could be reached. Mr. Poling said that Strategy 1 seemed to describe what should be happening because it would get the master planning process going. He said that it did not commit EWEB to selling the property and it did not commit the City to buying the property. He said that the citizens, EWEB, and the City would all have a say in the plan. Then the property could be sold at the maximum amount of the purchase price to a developer who would have to follow the master plan. He thought that this would be a win/win situation. He said that the motion simply directed the City Manager to work with EWEB to pursue Strategy 1. He said that he thought that action needed to be taken for EWEB’s benefit and to protect that valuable property. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that was exactly what he and Mr. Berggren were recommending and that, regardless of what was done, the first step was to initiate master planning. Mr. Poling said that by initiating the master planning process early, he thought that a plan for the optimal use of the property could be developed in which there would be open space, bike paths, and mixed use of commercial and residential land. Ms. Solomon said that Strategy 1 made the most sense to her and involved all the players, including the community. She noted that Eugene’s community had a strong voice and a great diversity of opinion and ideas. She thought that this would lead to a very thoughtful process for developing a master plan. Mr. Brown referred to Mr. Clark’s comments about Cottage Grove and said that he had been very involved in that process. He said that one of the most critical factors in getting the Cottage Grove project completed was the timing and not the numbers. He said that timing was just as critical as anything in the process. He said that everyone needed to be cognizant of the fact that EWEB needed resolution in order to avoid uncertainty, which would not work. Mr. Farmer cautioned people against being too optimistic about how quickly the process would move. He said that while he respected Ms. Laurence’s optimism, he pointed out that the Research Park took 10 years under this same process. He clarified that the EWEB Board had not yet finalized its position on the potential strategies. Ms. Bettman said that she agreed that the planning process needed to be collaborative. She said that while it was very understandable, EWEB’s impetus was to maximize the profitability and financial value of the property. She said that the City’s interest that the river was a significant resource and that the redevelop- ment of the property needed to be done consistent with certain criteria and values of the City as underscored in the Downtown Plan and all other plans. She said that, therefore, she believed strongly that the master planning process should be managed by the City with EWEB and other stakeholders at the table. She agreed that the timeline was important and should not take four years to complete. She noted that if the City exercised its option to purchase the property, it would have five years to plan for it. She said that she thought that the process would go move smoothly it the City managed it because the City would be able to capture more of the community’s sentiment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to a work session, a proposal that negotiates the City acquisition of the property in the event that it is declared surplus and provides for a City managed master plan process which outlines a collaborative process with EWEB. Mr. Poling said that while he appreciated Mr. Farmer informing the council that the board had not yet decided on which strategy it supported, he noted that the meeting had been set up as a time to find out what the City wanted. He also pointed out that the five-year time period that the City would have did not have to be used and that the sale could happen in a much less time. He said that he was still in favor of the recommended motion in the AIS and did not support Ms. Bettman’s motion. Mr. Pryor said that he thought that Ms. Bettman’s motion went further in making commitments that the recommended motion in the AIS. He said that he liked the motion because it initiated a planning process but did not necessarily make commitments with regard to surplus property and purchases. Mr. Pryor said that EWEB owned the property and it seemed logical to him that EWEB should be doing the master planning process with the City’s help. He said that question was who would own the master planning property. Mr. Zelenka said that the reason the property was in question was because EWEB needed to move and had a need for more functional space. He added that the economics for EWEB needed to make sense and the public benefit needed to be considered. He noted that there was a substantial, if not complete, overlap in constituents. If there was a financial benefit, the two entities should work together to capture that benefit and use it for EWEB’s move and also for the public infrastructure that would be needed. He said that he did think there were higher uses for that property and had a concern that the Willamette River and the riparian area needed to be adequately protected in the process. He said that he thought that the process should be collaborative and work toward a master plan. Mr. Zelenka acknowledged the City Manager for answering his question about why there was no city councilor on the advisory team. He said that he thought that it was important to have more public involvement in the planning process. He said that perhaps a way to get the council’s voice on the advisory team was through the selection of some of the community members on the team. Mr. Zelenka said that he was thinking of a process that would be more co-managed. He acknowledged the City’s interest in moving this forward while also acknowledging that the City did not own the property. He said that the EWEB commissioners needed to do what they needed to do in order to manage its fiduciary responsibilities as a board, and the council needed to do what was necessary in order to maximize the public benefit and make Eugene a nice place to live. Mr. Zelenka said that his problem with the motion was that EWEB had not yet declared the property surplus and therefore the City did not have any options at this point. Ms. Bettman pointed out that her motion said that “in the event that the property become surplus.” Mr. Zelenka asked what leverage the City had on EWEB to let the City manage the planning process when the City had no option yet on the property. Ms. Bettman clarified that the motion asked for the City Manager to bring a proposal back to the council. She said that this would give the council the opportunity to ask for additional information such as how other jurisdictions had managed transfers of public land. She said that this was not EWEB’s land but that it was public land. She said that EWEB had jurisdiction over the land and the City had first right of refusal. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Bettman pointed out that when the council and the community adopted the Downtown Plan, there were negotiations with EWEB about the provision in the plan that the City would get to approve the master plan and that the property could not be sold until there was a master plan. She said that EWEB was “on board” with this from the beginning. Ms. Bettman said that her motion was to have the City Manager bring a proposal back to the council. She said that the proposal could be modified at that point. She said that the City had rezoned property in the past and then disposed of it. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that when he and Mr. Berggren began discussing how to meet the board’s needs in terms of timeliness, certainty, and value, and the council’s needs in terms of community values and the master plan, he offered a similar proposal to Ms. Bettman’s. The proposal was for an assignable option in which EWEB would not have to declare the property surplus but terms would be negotiated and the City would take on the responsibility to master plan either jointly or through an advisory team. He said that this was done frequently and was being done with the West Broadway options. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that it seemed that there was consensus on what the two bodies did want and that the problems arose from who would go first and how the process should be managed. He said that was why he and Mr. Berggren made the recommendation to get the process underway as soon as possible and to enlist people to do the master planning who would be of assistance to both the City and EWEB. He said that he would like to have direction from the council so that he could go to the EWEB Board and ask what it would take to get the process going immediately. Ms. Bettman thanked the City Manager for his comments and said that she had used his letter to Mr. Berggren as part of the impetus for her motion. She emphasized that her motion did not say that the City Manager would go out and buy the property; rather, when the property was declared surplus the City could negotiate its option. She said that it would give some certainty and would give the community a chance to have a voice. She said that most people saw this as a community redevelopment opportunity and that she thought that this was the purview of the City. She said that she hoped that the councilors could support the motion. Ms. Taylor said that she intended to support the motion. She said that it was the citizens who owned the property, not EWEB or the City. She asked for the motion to be repeated. Mayor Piercy said she understood that both organizations had the public as their mutual constituents. She said she did not think that she could necessarily serve the public any better than the EWEB Board could serve the public. She said that she just wanted to know that the two bodies would come to agreement about how to go through the master planning process. She said that this needed to be a collaborative process and that each body needed to be satisfied with the process and that the process needed to be started soon. She said that she was not wedded to who would start the process and that she trusted both entities to have the public’s interest in mind. Mr. Pryor asked if the master planning could be done jointly. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that it was. Mr. Pryor offered a friendly amendment to the motion which would state that “the City and EWEB jointly undertake the master plan.” Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Pryor how that would differ from a City-managed master plan. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Laurence said that the City had undertaken other large planning processes, such as the one with City Hall. She said that she thought that EWEB and the City could jointly move forward to initiate and manage this process using the City’s expertise in planning and EWEB’s knowledge of the property and what would work for them. She said that funds for the consultant for this process would need to be discussed. She saw no difficulty in working together as had been demonstrated in the past five years. Ms. Bettman clarified that a jointly managed process would mean that at decision-making points, the council and EWEB would have to agree to a multi-jurisdictional decision-making process. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that ultimately both bodies would have to agree on the master plan. Ms. Bettman said that the proposal was to bring something back to the council and she wondered if it could include the option of City- managed and jointly managed plans. Mr. Klein said that the council could direct the City Manager to bring back proposals describing how the process could be City managed and how it could be jointly managed. Mr. Klein added that he would want to include in any proposal the extent to which the council could be involved in the master planning process. He said that if councilors were part of the advisory team and recommended approval of the master plan, they would also be saying that the comprehensive plan should be amended to allow it and this would appear as already supporting the quasi-judicial decision on the MetroPlan amendment. Ms. Bettman asked if the advisory team could just recommend forwarding the master plan to the council for a decision. Mr. Klein said that he thought that there was a way to have some council involvement, but he thought that the advisory team offered too many opportunities for opponents to say that whoever partici- pated on the team was biased and had a conflict of interest. Mr. Klein said that whether the master plan came to the council by itself or with the Metro Plan amendment, the council would have ultimate authority to say no to all of it because the master plan could not go forward without the Metro Plan amendment. He said that in terms of resources and a smooth system, it would make sense to have the master plan approved concurrently with the Metro Plan amendment. City Manager Dennis Taylor commented that the master plan process was not without cost and that one of the questions was who should bear that cost. Ms. Bettman said that she would like to take as the friendly amendment that the City Man- ager bring back proposals for both a City-managed master plan process and a joint or co- managed master plan process. Mr. Pryor agreed. Mr. Zelenka said that the reason he brought up the co-managed plan was that staff of the two entities brought different kinds of expertise and knowledge to the process. He said that both would be integral and important to making this work. He said that perhaps a third party facilitator would benefit the process. He said that he would like to hear what the EWEB commissioners thought of the proposal. Mr. Farmer said that based on what he had heard, he did not know if the board would accept a co-managed process or not. He said that he was almost certain that the board would not give up its right to manage the process for the property that it was going to sell. Mr. Simpson said that he was very much in favor of approaching the master planning process in a collaborative, shared manner. He said that it did not matter to him who was the lead on the process. He thought that the same results could be had even if the City took the lead. He said that he wanted to express MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 12 Work Session to the council that the board also understood that the land was in public domain and that the best and highest value of the property included not only the economic return but also what was best for the community in terms of opening up access to the river. Mr. Simpson said that he originally pushed to keep the EWEB headquarters building in operation at its current site and sell just the industrial portion of the EWEB site; he saw it naively in terms of the greatest dollar value. He said that over the last year he had come to understand that the value included much more than that. He said that the council could trust the EWEB commissioners to understand those values of balance. Mr. Simpson said he had a constituent suggest that the City Hall might be located on the EWEB property. He said that he would like to hear the council’s perspective on what might be the make-up of the Riverfront Advisory Team. Mr. Berggren said that this had been a learning experience for him and that he had become aware of the approval role that the council would play in the process. He said that it had become very clear that there would be no value for EWEB to spend money and go through a process if that process did not engage the City’s interest in an authentic and diverse way. He repeated that there was no value in the board doing something that would not lead to the council being able to approve the master plan. Mr. Berggren spoke about the two bodies having the same constituency and the EWEB commissioners’ awareness of the affect this process could have on rates. He used the metaphor of having money in the left pocket and the right pocket, explaining that running out of money in one pocket to buy needed services could impact a certain group of constituents, depending on who bore the cost. He said that while he and the board understood and recognized the diversity of value, they would have trouble reconciling that diversity without the process and the collaboration to find the balance point to treat both “pockets” in an equitable way. Mr. Berggren said that it sounded to him as if the City’s interest in buying the property had become a metaphor for controlling the process. He acknowledged that he could be wrong. He said that somehow the option to purchase was a control fulcrum. He said that he thought that there were some trust issues to work through but he assured the council that from the board’s perspective, there was no value for the board to do something that was not trustworthy, artful, and complete in creating a master plan. Otherwise, the board would have wasted a lot of time and money. Mr. Brown thanked Mr. Berggren for his comments. He said that if the property was designated all open space, EWEB’s rate payers would pay for the space; if it was not, the general tax payers would pay. He said that someone was going to pay whether it was through property taxes or utility rates. He said that there was a creative way similar to the Cottage Grove project. He said that through a collaborative process of the minds in the community, a way could be found to maximize the value of the property and protect the community asset. He said that he was not afraid of who did the process; but, whoever did it needed to have a vested financial interest in it. He said that, otherwise the only motivation would be to make it a public asset and the burden would be balanced on the backs of the rate payers. He said that would not be fair to the rate payers, especially those who struggled to pay for basic needs. He said that everyone involved had to make it work and that he was willing to participate to make it work. He said that he was still undecided as to who should lead the process but emphasized that it had to work and that it would work. He thought that it would be better to find resolution than fight. Mr. Menegat said that he supported a collaborative process but, as a member of the board, he would be reluctant to pass his duty or responsibility to proceed with this and to manage it on to someone else. He said MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 13 Work Session that the board would be discussing this further and that information might come forward to change his mind, but that at this point he would be reluctant to approve a co-managed process. Mr. Lanning said that he also would be reluctant to approve a co-managed process. He said that the board had every interest in having a master plan in a timely way that would be supported by the City. He said that he was very much for a collaborative process done in a timely way. Ms. Bettman addressed comments from Mr. Berggren. She quoted from an e-mail she received from the City Manager in response to a question she posed: What does the manager view as benefits for the City of the site’s acquisition? The city’s acquisition of the EWEB property would give the city the maximum amount of control over the future redevelopment of the property. Based on preliminary comments from our attorney, it appears that the master plan would need to be completed before approval of any lot line adjustments prior to the completion of a sale. Ms. Bettman said that in a lot of ways she thought that it was in the City’s best interest to manage or co- manage the process. She added that the City had more experience managing large redevelopment proposals. She repeated that EWEB was committed to moving and that once it was gone, the property would become part of the City’s downtown giving the City a vested interest in the outcome. She said that the motion provided options for a City-managed process and a co-managed process and that both would be collabora- tive. Mr. Pryor said that he was surprised there was no support from the EWEB commissioners for the co- managed process. He said that he was not hearing a lot of support for either option in the motion. He said that gave him pause in terms of moving down a road that did not have much benefit at the end. He said he would have hoped that a co-managed process would have been a demonstration of partnership. He said that it was unfortunate there was not a lot of interest in that. He said that he recognized jurisdictional or authority issues and still hoped that the two bodies could get to a joint process. He said that he would leave his friendly amendment with the hope that the City would bring back a joint process which EWEB could accept with a lot of trust issues being overcome. He noted that early partnerships always had a lot of trust issues. He said that he was optimistic that those trust issues could be overcome. Mr. Clark said that it seemed as if there was not consensus and that perhaps some more discussion would be helpful. Mr. Zelenka said that he was hoping to make a partnership in the planning process. He said that he would caution the EWEB commissioners from going off on their own given the role that the City would play. He said that all the interests needed to be at the table. He pointed out that this was a land use process more than it was a facilities planning process and that the City had a lot of experience in this. He said that if the project was to build a power plant there, he would recommend that EWEB lead the process. He said that was not the project and that the City would bring more expertise to a redevelopment project. Mr. Zelenka said that in the end he did not think that the City would necessarily have to buy the property if the process worked out right. He added that in the end the City still would have a giant lever of being able to have the option and potentially delaying the process. He said that did not seem like a very fruitful way to go. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 14 Work Session Mayor Piercy said that prior to the meeting, she had the feeling that the two groups were being portrayed as people who did not get along together. She said that she approached the meeting in the opposite way, and had tried to conduct the meeting in the opposite way. She said that she interpreted comments during the meeting that the notion of a shared planning process was about not trusting. She submitted that it was exactly about trusting. She said that the council had gone from a City-managed process (although she thought that Ms. Bettman was still interested in that) to a co-managed process in which the two bodies trusted each other. Mayor Piercy emphasized that all the council was being asked to do was to direct the City Manager to bring back an approach for the two entities to work together on behalf of the community. She hoped that the board would take this leap with the council. She said that the board could always “nix” the process later if it did not seem to be in the best interest of EWEB. She asked that both entities at least “start out the door” with the belief that everyone was mutually interested and committed to serving the best interests of people that they represented. She said that no one was trying to claim to be the superior body and that everyone was in this together. She asked the board to consider this carefully. She said that she thought that the council was willing to try to do this process together. She implored people to cast aside all the old “stuff” that was written about in the paper about relationships between the two bodies. She said that was not valuable. Mayor Piercy said that this was a moment in time and history for the community and that the constituents were looking for their leaders to say, “Let’s head out the door together.” She said that she believed that the two entities could do it. Ms. Bettman restated the motion: Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to a work session a proposal that negotiates City acquisition of the property, in the event that it is declared surplus, and provide options for a City-managed master plan process and a co- managed master plan process, both of which are collaborative with EWEB. Ms. Solomon asked if the motion meant that the City Manager would wait until EWEB declared the property surplus. Ms. Bettman said that it did not and that it said, “in the event that it is declared surplus.” She said that the planning would not have to wait for that. The motion passed, 6:2, with Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling casting votes in opposition. Mayor Piercy thanked the commissioners for being present and for participating with the council. She said that she hoped that this would be one of many more meetings. Ms. Bettman said that she wanted to thank the commissioners for being willing to reconsider the fish trucking strategy. She said that she thought that it took a lot of courage and foresight. She also thanked the commissioners for their decision on the reservoir. Ms. Bettman said that she was interested in finding out about what would happen to the cell tower infrastructure on top of the water tower when EWEB decommis- sioned the water tower. Mayor Piercy thanked the board for its speedy action to protect the riparian zone. She said that was a huge and wonderful action. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 15 Work Session City Manager Dennis Taylor said that the City got a lot of recognition for its hard work on sustainability such as being recognized as the Number 1 Green City by the Green Guide. He noted that the recognition was largely due the work and policies of the board and the collaborative work between the City and EWEB. He said that the two entities had worked so well together that he was sure they could work together well on this project. The meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Elise Self) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 16 Work Session