CC Minutes - 10/11/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly called the proposals exciting. He commented that ‘subsidy’ had become a dirty and political word. He pointed out that no one called the money spent on road projects that access a new development a subsidy. He said in this case government would be spending money for the community good, but the vehicle for the community good might be private development. He felt the fundamental community good would be that more people would live downtown, more high-quality development would be located downtown, and this development would go on the tax rolls. He said while the land sale price was of interest to him, the ultimate potential benefit to the community, both psychological and economic, were of a greater order of magnitude for him. Mr. Kelly liked the Sockeye proposal because of the low-income housing but could not support it because of the funding gap. He agreed that the TK Partners proposal was the best. He suggested the council pass the motion in the AIS and then plan for an executive session to discuss terms and conditions. Mr. Papé called the proposals exciting. He believed all three of the firms to be quality firms. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Braud clarified that the City paid $900,000 for the site, including the site where the present library was located. He added that one could roughly estimate that the cost of the site was $300,000, given that the purchase was for three quarter-blocks and the site in question was one quarter-block portion of it. Mr. Papé pointed out that the City spent $200,000 on the demolition. He surmised that approximately $600,000 had been invested in the property. He supported getting private investment in the downtown area. He wanted to try to accommodate private development as well as the City could. Nonetheless, he preferred to discuss the finer points of this negotiation in an executive session. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Braud clarified that the Beam proposal envisioned the City contributing the land to the project, and loaning it between $2 million and $2.7 million, and the repayment of the loan would be contingent on how well the project performed financially. Ms. Bettman said she appreciated that the ERAC had been expanded. She felt it added to the credibility of its recommendations. She felt the council could proceed with the motion in the AIS and then hold an executive session to iron out the details. Ms. Bettman indicated her support for the TK Partners proposal. She commented that the ultimate objective in the downtown area was to get more people there. She said the creation of housing downtown would further this objective and agreed that some subsidy would likely be required. She did like the Beam proposal except for the level of public subsidy it included. She did not believe the City should subsidize retail space in the downtown area. She noted that there was a small amount of commercial space in the TK Partners proposal and she felt it was an appropriate level to include in the development. She wanted to see the City move forward with it. Ms. Taylor wanted more time for the public to comment and for councilors to consider those comments. She did not believe executive sessions should be held unless they were absolutely required by law. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the Agency Director to enter into a 90-day exclusive negotiation period with TK Partners for the sale and development of th the 10 Avenue & Charnelton Street development site, based on their proposal, and to MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 11, 2006 Page 7 Work Session