Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

the company’s business was off-site home installations. He was not sure surface parking was critical to the business’ survival at that location. Mr. Poling agreed with City Manager pro tem Jones that the public benefit of offering the purchase offers would be recovering the City’s investment, and a favorable return would be recovering all of it. He said it appeared that everyone was waiting for the details of the Beam proposal so he thought making the purchase options available was a good idea and liked the idea of offering them to the tenants first, followed by a general offering. He thought there was momentum for development downtown, as illustrated by the discussions that occurred during the ballot measure campaign. Mr. Poling recalled his interest in including the Roberts/Taco Time building in the initial West Broadway development proposal but believed if the City offered the options it would have essentially the same effect. th Mr. Zelenka determined from Mr. Braud that the Bradford’s building was not included in the 10 Avenue and Charnelton RFP. Mr. Braud said the City had referenced its control of the surface parking lot in the RFP but did not market the Bradford’s building as part of the RFP. The goal was to offer a complete half- th block. Mr. Zelenka asked if it was possible to include parking for the business in the 10 and Charnelton RFP to allow it to maintain the limited amount of parking it had. Mr. Braud said the City did not know the nature of the parking need for what would be constructed; he pointed out that it could be underground. Mr. Zelenka suggested that staff, through the RFP, could ask respondents to discuss how they would replace Bradford’s parking. Mr. Zelenka confirmed with Mr. Braud that all the options were voluntarily negotiated with the owners, who agreed to the prices paid. Mr. Zelenka said the City had $344,000 invested in the purchase options, and if the City could recover all or most of that money or even make money, it would be great. He asked City Attorney Klein to speak to the restrictions Ms. Bettman mentioned. City Attorney Klein thought the City could accomplish those things legally through a separate agreement that followed the property, but he would have to check with his firm’s real estate expert. He said such an agreement would have to be carefully crafted, and if the council gave him direction, he would attempt to do so. Mr. Zelenka said demolition of the building with the goal of immediate redevelopment would be acceptable, but he did not want to see an empty site. He thought the action contemplated by the council was in keeping with the message he received from the public’s vote in regard to a reduced government role in downtown development. Mr. Zelenka asked Beam’s progress in reassessing the Center Court Building. Mr. Braud said the company was moving forward with the project and was talking to potential tenants. Engineers had gone over the space but he had heard nothing negative as a result of those studies. Everything he had heard was encouraging. Ms. Solomon thought restricting people in what they could do was a “real low vision” approach. Ms. Solomon asked how dependent Beam was on ORI for the project. Mr. Braud said ORI was looking at other sites and had not made a decision. Beam and City staff had been encouraged by ORI’s interest in the project and was working to facilitate it. Beam was also talking to other potential anchor tenants. He confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, that the Washburne Building was also part of the project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 5 Work Session