CC Minutes - 07/18/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman asked for clarification of the difference between the final agreement and the formal binding document. She cited language that suggested there would be more than one document. Mr. Braud said the final document would be the development or purchase and sale agreement, depending on what it was called, and the terms of that document would be approved and authorized by the council; it would be the only final document. Ms. Bettman asked if City Attorney Glenn Klein agreed with Mr. Braud. Mr. Klein said the development agreement would be the primary document identifying the roles and responsibilities of the parties, but there was the possibility that other documents, such as an escrow agreement, would be required to implement the formal agreement. He said that any associated documents would be referenced in the development agreement. Ms. Bettman pointed out that item No. 7 in the Beam draft MOU required the developer’s best efforts to cooperate with the URA and committee on a relocation plan for tenants and businesses impacted by the project. She hoped there would be a plan that held local businesses downtown harmless but the language did not appear to require that. Ms. Taylor asked why there was one proposed motion when there were two MOUs. Mr. Braud said that staff had provided one motion because the council had selected both of the developers and directed that an MOU for each be brought back. Mr. Klein added that the council could act separately on the MOUs. Ms. Solomon arrived at 12:15 p.m. Ms. Taylor noted that the Beam draft MOU described a mix of uses that included hotel, cinema, and grocery and asked if Beam was considering any of the uses for its project. Mr. Braud said Beam was not proposing those uses and the intent of the language was to describe what could happen within the entire development area. Ms. Taylor asserted the language was inappropriate since it did not apply to Beam and should be eliminated. Regarding relocation, she asked if Beam could “work around” existing tenants in the Washburn Building, as that building would not be demolished. Mr. Braud said discussions with Beam indicated an interest in retaining the current tenants, although no details of the construction phase were yet developed. Ms. Taylor pointed out other instances of general language, such as a reference to option agreements on “several of the properties along West Broadway,” that should be specifically tailored to Beam’s actual project. She also pointed out that the URA had not hired the facilitator, as she did not recollect that the council had discussed it. Mr. Klein clarified that the term “urban renewal agency” in that context equated to the City and was used to identify the action as one taken by the URA. He said the council acted as the URA board and had provided direction to the City Manager to select a facilitator. Ms. Taylor commented that the council had not specified who or what kind of person should be hired as the facilitator. She asked if the KWG agreement would be more specific about relocation plans for existing businesses. She did not see how businesses could be held harmless if they had to give up their current locations. Mr. Braud replied that the URA directed the committee to work on a transition plan for businesses that would inform the final agreement. He said the intent of the MOUs was to avoid binding agreements on either side; requiring a specific commitment of KWG to enter into a relocation plan would be premature at this point. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 18, 2007 Page 2 Work Session