Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo Ferring asked City Council on Sept. 2 to bring back an amendment to the city’s open‑space disposition ordinance (Process A, Section 14.52.0303, Section 1) that would narrow the definition of “public purpose” by explicitly excluding uses such as industrial development, housing and conveyances to private entities. The council discussed whether the change would close a “net benefit” loophole added by an earlier amendment and whether it would affect ongoing negotiations tied to a currently tabled land transaction.

City Attorney Eugene May explained the existing ordinance language says “public purpose means and includes but is not limited to use of property for right of way, easements for city roads, utilities and life essential infrastructure and sale or exchange of property interest that result in a net benefit to open space,” and that the term “net benefit” is not defined and is left for council interpretation.

After debate about timing and whether the motion would affect ongoing negotiations (members noted that a separate, active project had been tabled pending progress), the council voted. The motion to return the ordinance language for revision failed, with Mayor Peck, Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo Ferring and Councilor McCoy voting yes and Councilors Popkin, Yarbrough, Christ and Rodriguez voting no.

Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo Ferring then introduced a second motion directing staff to prepare ballot language to require any future land exchange or disposition of open space to go to a public vote. Council discussion touched on timing (the earliest feasible election would be 2027 or 2028), whether a survey of voters should precede drafting the measure, and whether the pending, tabled negotiation should be excluded from any future rule change. The transcript records the motion but no recorded council vote on the ballot‑language motion during the study session; the mayor pro tem said she could hold the motion until after other negotiations conclude.

Why it matters: The ordinance governs how the city may swap, sell or otherwise dispose of land held as open space. Changes to its definition of “public purpose” could prevent certain types of development on land now classified as open space and would affect future negotiations and potential land transactions.

What happened next: No ordinance amendment was approved. The council did not take a formal recorded vote on the ballot‑language motion during the study session; staff were instructed to discuss timing, and councilors urged careful coordination to avoid interfering with active negotiations.

Clarifying details: City Attorney Eugene May said the ordinance leaves “public purpose” open to council interpretation; the proposal would add guardrails that explicitly exclude industrial, housing or private‑entity uses from disposition consideration. Councilors noted that an earlier amendment had allowed sales or exchanges that “result in a net benefit to open space,” and that different councils can interpret “net benefit” differently. The mayor pro tem asked staff to return the ordinance at the “next available spot” while recognizing the ongoing budget season and existing negotiations.

Next steps: Staff will schedule the ordinance draft and advise council on timing and whether an active, tabled negotiation should be excluded from any newly adopted rules.