Item 3A-Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark expressed some surprise at Ms. Bettman’s staunch opposition. He recalled that he had conceded on the choice of consultant and that during the process he had wanted to move more slowly and deliberately. He remarked that for Ms. Bettman to be unhappy at this stage of the process when he had gotten the sense from her that she was interested in moving much more quickly was challenging for him to hear. Mr. Clark concurred with Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Zelenka. He had been struck by the recommendation made by the citizen panel, which had been a collaboration of people from all different sides of the political spectrum. He underscored that the panel had come together and declared that Mr. Ruiz was someone they could work with. He looked forward to working with Mr. Ruiz and believed it presented an opportunity to move “to the next level.” Mayor Piercy noted that the council had already decided to hire Mr. Ruiz. She said there had been two good candidates and one had prevailed. She was pleased with the choice and hoped that everyone would be supportive and welcoming. She had read all of the reports and background information and believed that the City could not have done any better. She underscored his ability to work collaboratively and with a diverse range of people. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the City Council at 12:15 p.m. and convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. B. ACTION: West Broadway Update Mr. Luell explained that this item was a follow-up to seek language for disposition of the options. City Attorney Glenn Klein said the attorney’s office had attempted to provide a methodology to comply with the motion passed which would allow tenants the right to purchase the option and, in the case no tenant was interested, that others could purchase it. He stated that it would include a provision that indicated there would be serious consequences if a building was demolished and construction on another building was not built within a “quick period” of time. He noted that Ms. Bettman had sent out an email containing questions and suggested that he respond to them for the benefit of the council. Mr. Klein said the first question was in regard to the City’s intent in terms of the cost to acquiring the options. He clarified that the intention was to cover the amount that the agency paid to secure the options, which in most cases was $5,000 to $10,000. He related that Ms. Bettman had asked what the terms ‘memo of offer’ and ‘purpose of development’ meant. He explained that the memo of offer served to provide a uniform format for bidders to use to submit something back to the City. He said the purpose of development sought to disallow someone to acquire property and “just sit on it.” He noted that there was also a provision that would allow the Agency Director to reject all of the bids, should this be the case. Mr. Klein addressed Ms. Bettman’s question regarding a scenario in which more than one tenant wished to bid on the property and one tenant then bid more to win the option. He suggested adding a provision that indicated that if only one tenant bid on the option the agency should charge the minimum amount. He underscored that the intent in providing the methodology was to meet the criterion of getting it done before the first option expired on March 15. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 2 Work Session