Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Ortiz and Ms. Piercy indicated their support of Mr. Zelenka's revisions. Ms. Piercy commented that a <br />pocket park should be situated so it could be observed from offices and residences. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman pointed out that the recommendations did not rule out less than 300 housing units or clusters of <br />national retail chains. She commented that while proposals would come back to the council, the council <br />could change its own criteria. She said $10 million of the $40 million urban renewal spending increase was <br />for administration and did not include all of the expenditures such as interest, grants and tax incentives. She <br />said that adopting the recommendations would only increase the price tag. She stated that $1.25 million in <br />General Fund money was also included and there was no plan for pedestrian amenities or parks. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked the legal status would be if the motion passed and the ballot measure failed. Mr. Klein <br />responded that the status with respect to the motion was the same whether the ballot measure passed or <br />failed; the motion directed the agency director to work with developers to prepare proposals for the council <br />and failure of the ballot measure would mean there were no tools to implement those proposals. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if developers were willing to continue to prepare proposals if the council adopted the <br />motion. Mr. Braud said developers would be given direction to prepare proposals and he had no indication <br />that the developers would not be responsive. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Braud said the Atrium was not part of the development <br />proposals. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling suggested the possibility that there could be underground parking beneath the pocket park. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said he understood that the developers were encouraged about moving forward with proposals <br />and were pleased with the results of the WBAC process. He explained that once the motion passed, staff <br />would ask developers to prepare proposals and work with them on a development agreement for the council's <br />consideration. He felt the reference to interest expense as a part of the project cost was misleading. He used <br />the example of asking someone how much they paid for their home; the answer did not include the interest <br />on mortgage payments over the next 20 years. He was optimistic that the recommendations would inform <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />