Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Private Partnerships topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays Oso Creek Vision Plan PPP feasibility study amid budget and surplus‑land concerns
Summary
Councilmembers split over advancing a public‑private partnership study for the Oso Creek Vision Plan; after public comment and detailed questioning about budgets and legal constraints, the council voted 4–1 to continue the item to the second meeting in August for further review after the budget process.
Councilmembers discussed whether to move the Oso Creek Vision Plan into its 4–6 year phase and to initiate a public‑private partnership (PPP) feasibility process for an expanded clubhouse, permanent event space and structured parking.
Mayor Pro Tem Goodell outlined the recommended actions and the vision-plan background. The staff presentation summarized past planning work and fiscal context; the mayor pro tem and council members called out net operating income figures and noted the plan’s earlier cost and phasing assumptions. Supporters said a PPP could bring private capital and hospitality expertise; critics warned that long-term leases or exclusive agreements could trigger the Surplus Lands Act and potentially expose the site to housing disposition obligations if statutory triggers apply.
During public comment, speakers voiced mixed views. Jill Schindler urged caution on leasing public land: "I'm really concerned that we sign a lease and instead of ending up with open space, we end up with apartments," she said. Taylor Schmidt, a young resident, urged studying the opportunity, saying the site could become a year‑round community gathering place. Council discussion focused on fiscal responsibility, the existing parking-lot project, staff workload and legal constraints; staff estimated an independent feasibility study would likely cost about $50,000–$70,000 and that the city would need to procure outside expertise.
Outcome: after debate the council voted 4–1 to continue the item to the council meeting after the budget process (second meeting in August), effectively pausing procurement or exclusive negotiations pending further budget and legal analysis. The Mayor Pro Tem was the lone dissenting vote.
Why it matters: the proposal could remake city-owned Oso Creek golf‑course property through private capital and new amenities, but it raises questions about long-term public control, potential Surplus Land Act obligations and whether the city should proceed while budget details are unresolved.
Next steps: staff will return with updated fiscal context and legal analysis during or after the budget process in August; council asked for clarity on Surplus Land Act implications and a detailed procurement plan if the item proceeds.
