Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon said she would like to get rid of as many purchase options as possible to save the City money. Ms. Solomon said she had not seen an analysis of the proposed land exchange with Diamond Parking. She said that currently the City-owned parking lot was generating revenues for the City and now it would not. Mr. Braud said the primary obstacle in negotiating with Diamond Parking was that it was not interested in selling any of its property and in fact had the reputation of never disposing of property, but the company was willing to entertain an exchange of land. Diamond had expressed a high level of interest in the City- owned parking lot because the company was in the parking business. He acknowledged the parking lot did well. He clarified that the cash and property exchange were based on the same type of price the City offered for the other buildings on the block. Mr. Pryor liked the idea of assigning the purchase options as described and he liked the idea of placing some conditions on the sale of the options, though not many. He wanted to maintain a “light touch” that kept the momentum going in the downtown area. He regretted Diamond Parking was not willing to sell its property. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the agency director to solicit offers from parties interested in an assignment of the purchase options not being exercised by the URA. th Ms. Bettman said that Mr. Braud compared the property at 12 Avenue and Oak Street with the other properties, even though that property was not an income-producing property. The City had no appraisal on it and it was not valued as income-producing. Mr. Braud clarified that that the Diamond and Bradford properties were both income-producing properties. He said that staff had talked to appraisers to establish the value of both of the properties, and because the properties were not equivalent in value, Diamond would also receive a cash payment. Ms. Bettman said if the City did not assign the options, it was not as though the properties could not be purchased on the private market. The issue was how deeply the City Council wanted the City involved in the private market. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment that stated the first right of refusal was to existing tenants, who could assume the existing options for the option cost. She clarified that the City would not attempt to make money off those tenants; even if they were not the highest bidders, they would be allowed to assume the existing option at the option cost. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman asked City Attorney Klein about including a provision in the motion that prohibited demolish- ing properties without redevelopment within a specific time frame. There would also have to be a remedy, such as the property reverting back to the City. Those constraints would apply to existing tenants as well as other parties. In addition, the properties involved could not be used for surface parking. Mr. Pryor was willing to accept those points for inclusion in the motion but wanted more certainty about the time frame involved for demolishing and rebuilding. Ms. Bettman agreed. City Attorney Klein pointed out the properties would revert back to the property owners, not to the City, as the City held only the options. City Attorney Klein indicated his office would prepare text for the council to consider on February 13. Ms. Bettman said a council priority was having more people downtown, which meant housing. She asked if there was a way to create a weighted formula for awarding the purchase options that would favor housing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 6 Work Session