Laserfiche WebLink
how it could be an egregious process if allowed under State law. In this case, he thought the approach was <br />reasonable. He had experience with such contracts and found them to save money and work well. He was <br />pleased that the subcontractor work would be bid. <br /> <br />Regarding the suggestion that the parking garage was a subsidy to Whole Foods, Mr. Pryor disagreed. He <br />said Whole Foods was building its own parking facility, and the City garage was being built to help support <br />development in the east end of downtown. He believed that helping downtown was a good thing. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for a second round of council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said it was true that the statute allowed the exemption, but there were specific criteria in the <br />governing statute, and in her opinion the findings failed to meet the State criteria. Staff failed to prove the <br />proposal benefited the public or justified the exemption. She did not support the resolution and hoped it was <br />voted down in favor of designing and locating a garage that fit the public’s interest as opposed to the <br />developer’s interest, and putting it out for competitive bids. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor wondered why the project depended on City action if the City’s contribution was not considered <br />to be a subsidy? <br /> <br />Mr. Klein responded to Ms. Bettman’s comments, saying he had not prepared the findings but a lawyer <br />familiar with the State statute had prepared the findings, and believed they were in compliance with State <br />law. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked the council to do what was right rather than what it could “get through by loopholes.” <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to authorize the City Manager to enter into <br />land transaction agreement between property owned by the City and property owned by The <br />Shedd Institute for the Arts, LLC, for the purposes of participating in the East Broadway <br />Development Projects, in substantial conformity with the outline of terms described in At- <br />tachment B. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz did not perceive the issue in terms of black and white. She said she read extensively on the topic <br />and discussed it with many people, several of who were rude to her. She said it was easier for those who <br />had strong feelings one way or another to make decisions. She was torn between positions on many issues. <br />However, the council gave direction to the City Manager to go forward with the land exchange and he had <br />carried out its direction. She supported the staff recommendation and noted that if this was political suicide, <br />then “so be it.” She could not base her decision today on her next career move. Ms. Ortiz said she could <br />not find anything in the proposal that made her think it was bad for Eugene. She said this was “not the end <br />of the free world as we know it.” <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the decision was a difficult one for him and he had thoroughly reviewed the testimony and <br />attended several community meetings on the project. He said every project had potential advantages and <br />disadvantages, and at this point he believed the proposal had more advantages. Whole Foods would pay for <br />its own parking and there was value in a public garage on the east end of downtown to support development <br />such as The Shedd and the courthouse. He would not support the proposal if he thought it would give one <br />dollar to Whole Foods. Mr. Kelly believed the public dollars were being used for a good purpose. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 15, 2006 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />