CC Minutes - 07/18/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if a business did not want to relocate. Mr. Braud said the City’s commitment was to assist all of the businesses that were affected as part of the project. Mr. Clark said he assumed that tenants would address with their landlords what could be done legally. He understood that the MOUs were non-binding and represented the URA’s expectations of the other parties. He said the MOU expected the developers to participate in good faith with the URA and the committee in the creation of a relocation plan but did not require the developers to assume any specific responsibility for relocation of businesses. Mr. Braud agreed with that statement. Mr. Zelenka observed that the MOUs were virtually the same with the exception of project elements related to properties and established the relationship between developers and the URA. He said that the recommen- dations from the committee would be incorporated into more detailed plans by the developers and those plans would form the basis of the development agreements, which would come before the council for approval. He listed the items the committee had been charged with addressing, including a reloca- tion/transition plan for existing businesses, and stated he did not recall a commitment by the council to hold harmless any businesses. He said that property owners would be fairly compensated, but renters were in a more precarious position; however, there had not been any discussion of an agreement with tenants and it was outside the purview of government to tell renters what to do once owners sold buildings. He said that was the reason the committee was asked to develop a transition plan. He asked what the next steps in the process were. Mr. Braud said the committee would continue to work on the items charged to it and was scheduled to finish that effort in August. He said other processes, such as the HUD Section 108 loan application and urban renewal plan amendment process, were underway. He said the council would review the committee recommendations in mid-September and provide direction to staff on negotiations and deal points for the final development agreements. Mayor Piercy asked if MOUs were binding unless specifically designated as non-binding. Mr. Klein stated it was not the title of the document, but rather the provisions of the document itself that determined whether it was binding. He said that agreement by all parties that the MOUs were non-binding should be explicitly stated in the provisions to ensure that interpretation by the courts. Ms. Bettman noted the MOU reference to affordable housing and asserted that affordable housing was very different than low-income housing and because it was explicitly stated as affordable housing that would appear to preclude low-income housing. Mr. Braud said it was a matter of terminology and the intent was to be clear that the project would include a low-income housing component consistent with the developers’ proposals. Ms. Bettman asked that the MOUs be amended to include both affordable and low-income housing. She would offer that as a friendly amendment when there was a motion on the table. She reviewed project activity to-date and the council’s action at various points in the process. She asked if any more public hearings were planned. Mr. Braud said there were additional opportunities for public involvement through the committee’s public workshops. Ms. Bettman hoped there would be additional public hearings as all of the previous hearings had transpired before there were specific development projects before the council. She acknowledged that the council had not specifically addressed relocation issues or plans, but did not think that holding businesses harmless MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 18, 2007 Page 3 Work Session