My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2007
>
CC Agenda - 09/10/07 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:25:19 PM
Creation date
9/6/2007 11:00:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
9/10/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
incorporated into the final binding documents. Mr. Braud said the committee would make its recommenda- <br />tions to the council and the council would determine what went into the final agreement. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked for clarification of the difference between the final agreement and the formal binding <br />document. She cited language that suggested there would be more than one document. Mr. Braud said the <br />final document would be the development or purchase and sale agreement, depending on what it was called, <br />and the terms of that document would be approved and authorized by the council; it would be the only final <br />document. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if City Attorney Glenn Klein agreed with Mr. Braud. Mr. Klein said the development <br />agreement would be the primary document identifying the roles and responsibilities of the parties, but there <br />was the possibility that other documents, such as an escrow agreement, would be required to implement the <br />formal agreement. He said that any associated documents would be referenced in the development <br />agreement. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman pointed out that item No. 7 in the Beam draft MOU required the developer’s best efforts to <br />cooperate with the URA and committee on a relocation plan for tenants and businesses impacted by the <br />project. She hoped there would be a plan that held local businesses downtown harmless but the language did <br />not appear to require that. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked why there was one proposed motion when there were two MOUs. Mr. Braud said that <br />staff had provided one motion because the council had selected both of the developers and directed that an <br />MOU for each be brought back. Mr. Klein added that the council could act separately on the MOUs. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon arrived at 12:15 p.m. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor noted that the Beam draft MOU described a mix of uses that included hotel, cinema, and grocery <br />and asked if Beam was considering any of the uses for its project. Mr. Braud said Beam was not proposing <br />those uses and the intent of the language was to describe what could happen within the entire development <br />area. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asserted the language was inappropriate since it did not apply to Beam and should be eliminated. <br />Regarding relocation, she asked if Beam could “work around” existing tenants in the Washburn Building, as <br />that building would not be demolished. Mr. Braud said discussions with Beam indicated an interest in <br />retaining the current tenants, although no details of the construction phase were yet developed. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor pointed out other instances of general language, such as a reference to option agreements on <br />“several of the properties along West Broadway,” that should be specifically tailored to Beam’s actual <br />project. She also pointed out that the URA had not hired the facilitator, as she did not recollect that the <br />council had discussed it. Mr. Klein clarified that the term “urban renewal agency” in that context equated to <br />the City and was used to identify the action as one taken by the URA. He said the council acted as the URA <br />board and had provided direction to the City Manager to select a facilitator. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor commented that the council had not specified who or what kind of person should be hired as the <br />facilitator. She asked if the KWG agreement would be more specific about relocation plans for existing <br />businesses. She did not see how businesses could be held harmless if they had to give up their current <br />locations. Mr. Braud replied that the URA directed the committee to work on a transition plan for <br />businesses that would inform the final agreement. He said the intent of the MOUs was to avoid binding <br />agreements on either side; requiring a specific commitment of KWG to enter into a relocation plan would be <br />premature at this point. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 18, 2007 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.