Item B1: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Ortiz and Ms. Piercy indicated their support of Mr. Zelenka's revisions. Ms. Piercy commented that a pocket park should be situated so it could be observed from offices and residences. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the recommendations did not rule out less than 300 housing units or clusters of national retail chains. She commented that while proposals would come back to the council, the council could change its own criteria. She said $10 million of the $40 million urban renewal spending increase was for administration and did not include all of the expenditures such as interest, grants, and tax incentives. She said that adopting the recommendations would only increase the price tag. She stated that $1.25 million in General Fund money was also included and there was no plan for pedestrian amenities or parks. Ms. Taylor asked what the legal status would be if the motion passed and the ballot measure failed. Mr. Klein responded that the status with respect to the motion was the same whether the ballot measure passed or failed; the motion directed the agency director to work with developers to prepare proposals for the council and failure of the ballot measure would mean there were no tools to implement those proposals. Ms. Taylor asked if developers were willing to continue to prepare proposals if the council adopted the motion. Mr. Braud said developers would be given direction to prepare proposals and he had no indication that the developers would not be responsive. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Braud said the Atrium was not part of the development proposals. Mr. Poling suggested the possibility that there could be underground parking beneath the pocket park. Mr. Zelenka said he understood that the developers were encouraged about moving forward with proposals and were pleased with the results of the WBAC process. He explained that once the motion passed, staff would ask developers to prepare proposals and work with them on a development agreement for the council's consideration. He felt the reference to interest expense as a part of the project cost was misleading. He used the example of asking someone how much they paid for their home; the answer did not include the interest on mortgage payments over the next 20 years. He was optimistic that the recommendations would inform the developer so they could prepare proposals that were responsive to council and community interests in a revitalized downtown and building on the other urban renewal agency successes. Ms. Bettman remarked that the recommendations did not reflect community wishes. Ms. Piercy hoped that developers would make efforts to blend any historically significant architectural features in downtown with the new construction. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones Interim City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 7 Work Session