Laserfiche WebLink
ing exercised by the URA with the first right to acquire the option to the tenant for the <br />value that the URA paid for the option, and if the tenant was not interested, to solicit of- <br />fers from others with some kind of provision that provides for a reasonable time frame for <br />redevelopment after any demolition, with serious consequences if that redevelopment does <br />not occur. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the URA and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to convey owner- <br />ship of the City-owned parking lot identified in Attachment C to Diamond Parking as par- <br />tial compensation for the URA’s acquisition of the property identified as Property #4 in At- <br />tachment A. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Braud described the appraisal methodology and clarified <br />that the City did not actually commission a formal appraisal for the property. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon asked why a formal appraisal of Property #4 was not done. Mr. Braud said the City did <br />formal appraisals on all properties in the redevelopment area and had information on downtown property <br />land values and assumed the two lots were fairly equivalent in value. He had also talked to some real estate <br />professionals about those values. He acknowledged the company was not easy to deal with and the <br />transaction might not be a real market value transaction. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon was not comfortable with the lack of an appraisal and could not support the transaction as <br />proposed. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ms. Solomon’s remarks, Ms. Bettman pointed out the URA spending limit expansion and entire <br />West Broadway development proposal were based on purchase options that were acquired without formal <br />appraisals. That entire process occurred without appraisals. If the City “stopped the clock now” to get an <br />appraisal, it would lose the property. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 6:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. <br /> <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION: City of Eugene Elections Code Revision <br /> <br /> <br />City Recorder Mary Feldman was present for the item. She distributed a matrix noting the change being <br />proposed to the Elections Code, the nature of the change, and the reason for the change. She said the <br />changes were intended to clarify confusing provisions, correct grammatical errors, and reorder the code <br />sections to chronologically reflect the process people were expected to pursue. She identified Section 2.977, <br />Section 2.980, Section 2.981, Section 2.993, and Section 2.994 as sections the council might wish to discuss <br />further for their policy implications. <br /> <br />Ms. Feldman said nothing in the changes being proposed would affect the May 2008 election or the voters’ <br />pamphlet for that election. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy solicited questions. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />