Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

the agreements with the developers. Pushing the project out until after March could affect the City’s ability to do the project. Ms. Taylor asked if the City Council would refer the ordinance to save the petitioners money. City Manager pro tem Jones said that was one outcome. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Feldman said that an ordinance, once referred, must go on the next available ballot. Ms. Taylor suggested that postponing the election until March 2008 could give people more time to be educated about the project. Mr. Pryor found the remarks of City Manager pro tem Jones persuasive and determined from her that she recommended a November 2007 election. He said he would support the recommendation. Mr. Poling concurred with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. He determined from Mr. Braud that the property options for several of the affected properties would expire prior to November but it was likely that the City would negotiate extensions with the property owners or buy the properties. Mr. Poling further determined from City Manager pro tem Jones that the November timeframe gave the City certainty about the project sooner and it gave the City the opportunity to work with the property owners to extend the options. While he would have liked to have seen the petitioners attempt to collect the needed signatures given community dissatisfaction with the current state of downtown, Mr. Poling indicated support for City Manager pro tem Jones’ recommendation. City Manager pro tem Jones believed the recommendation gave the community another opportunity to provide the council with clear feedback on the project. Ms. Ortiz supported the manager’s recommendation. She did not perceive it as a “stall” tactic. She expressed appreciation for the recommendation. She said that people often said to her that the council needed to do something about downtown, and this was a way for them to vote yes. Mr. Zelenka believed that a March or May 2008 election was too late. He had no problem asking the public to vote and believed the measure would pass easily. He expressed concern that since the West Broadway Advisory Committee had not finished its work, the developers had no plan the council could share with the public in an informational campaign. Mr. Clark endorsed the manager’s recommendation. He did not fear asking the public to vote on the proposal because he thought it would pass by a large margin. He determined from Mr. Braud that there was some flexibility under the current district spending limit sufficient to cover some, but not all, of the options. Mr. Braud said the City could consider other funding sources. Mr. Clark had some concern about the options, saying that if the City could not get the options renegotiated, he thought the project would be in jeopardy. Mr. Braud pointed out there was risk on both sides and in both timeframes. He expressed confidence staff could negotiate additional time for the options and did not think prices needed to be renegotiated, although more time could come at a price. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Klein said he would draft the ballot title and that title could be appealed. The State had informed the City that it must follow the State ballot title process rather than the City ballot title process, which meant any appeal would go to the Circuit Court rather than the council. Ms. Taylor asked how much money the City would spend renewing the options. Mr. Braud had no specific number to offer, saying the City’s cost for individual option agreements ranged from $3,000 to almost $20,000. Ms. Taylor asked if the options would cost more if renewed. Mr. Braud said that generally, prices had gone up. Ms. Taylor asked if the City could use current urban renewal funds to purchase the Center MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 15, 2007 Page 7 Work Session