Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Court and Washburn Aster buildings. Mr. Braud said yes. Ms. Taylor stated that the City could go ahead with the part of the redevelopment, which she found sensible, without expanding the district’s debt limit. Mr. Braud concurred, noting that would be a council decision. Ms. Bettman asserted the referral process was included in State statute because urban renewal was diverting about $18 million into other projects, some which she considered good and some which she considered not so good. She averred that the referral process was included in the statute due to the fact that urban renewal expenditures were controversial “all over the state.” She believed there were arguments to be made on both sides as to whether urban renewal was a good use of tax dollars. She asked what the City would put on the ballot, given that there was no project or price tag. Mr. Klein said that title would speak to the significant changes made by the ordinance to the plan, including the increase in maximum indebtedness, name change, and extension to 2030. The proponents committee and opponents committee would provide their own information. Ms. Bettman suggested that the City would have more information in March 2008 because it would have a defined project and price tag. She pointed out there was sufficient money in the district to move forward with the Beam proposal, which she supported. She did not think the opponents to the ordinance wanted to stop downtown revitalization; they questioned how the money was being used. Ms. Bettman questioned councilors’ concerns about the options given the amount invested in them was small compared to the overall expenditure being contemplated. She averred that prices for property were going down both nationally and locally, and suggested the City let the options expire and negotiate new, lower prices. She thought there was incentive for the property owners to sell, and asserted that the City was bargaining out of a position of weakness. Mayor Piercy said that she had talked to the proponents of the referral, who indicated to her they were supportive of the City process and work of the advisory group, but did not know what the result would be so wanted to leave themselves with the option “to say yea or nay” to the ultimate proposal. They wanted the ability to respond to the work that went forward. She thought that the manager’s recommendation could satisfy both the developers and the referral proponents. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to reconsider Ordinance 20389, adopted by the council on August 13, 2007. Ms. Bettman suggested that the council instead consider postponing adoption of the ordinance until it had a plan and price tag, as she had proposed on August 13. Mr. Braud asked how the “plan” would be defined. Ms. Bettman defined the “plan” as the agreement signed between the City and developers that identified what the City got and what it paid and what the developer paid. Mr. Klein pointed out that the danger to such an approach would be that a future ordinance could be referred to the voters, causing delays that could threaten the project. Mr. Zelenka believed the petitioners put the council in the position of attempting to articulate the plan “before its time.” Ironically, the options put most at risk were those associated with the Beam project, which was the part of the project the petitioners supported. Ms. Bettman interjected that the City had the money to purchase those properties. Mr. Zelenka said that doing only the Beam project did not work for him. He believed the City needed to transform downtown, which required housing and a critical mass. Merely renovating the Center Court and Washburn buildings brought the City back to a place five years ago when those buildings were fully occupied. He noted that the Beam representative had indicated to the West Broadway Advisory Committee that part of its success depended on the KGW project going forward. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 15, 2007 Page 8 Work Session