Laserfiche WebLink
B. ACTION: <br /> West Broadway Update <br /> <br />Mr. Luell explained that this item was a follow-up to seek language for disposition of the options. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein said the attorney’s office had attempted to provide a methodology to comply with <br />the motion passed which would allow tenants the right to purchase the option and, in the case no tenant was <br />interested, that others could purchase it. He stated that it would include a provision that indicated there <br />would be serious consequences if a building was demolished and construction on another building was not <br />built within a “quick period” of time. He noted that Ms. Bettman had sent out an email containing questions <br />and suggested that he respond to them for the benefit of the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein said the first question was in regard to the City’s intent in terms of the cost to acquiring the <br />options. He clarified that the intention was to cover the amount that the agency paid to secure the options, <br />which in most cases was $5,000 to $10,000. He related that Ms. Bettman had asked what the terms ‘memo <br />of offer’ and ‘purpose of development’ meant. He explained that the memo of offer served to provide a <br />uniform format for bidders to use to submit something back to the City. He said the purpose of development <br />sought to disallow someone to acquire property and “just sit on it.” He noted that there was also a provision <br />that would allow the Agency Director to reject all of the bids, should this be the case. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein addressed Ms. Bettman’s question regarding a scenario in which more than one tenant wished to <br />bid on the property and one tenant then bid more to win the option. He suggested adding a provision that <br />indicated that if only one tenant bid on the option the agency should charge the minimum amount. He <br />underscored that the intent in providing the methodology was to meet the criterion of getting it done before <br />the first option expired on March 15. <br /> <br />Continuing, Mr. Klein related that the final question was in regard to the penalty provision. He stated that if <br />the property was demolished the code would require that before any construction was undertaken all of the <br />according permits would have to be obtained. He said it was trickier to find an objective standard to apply <br />for potentially penalizing someone who purchased a building and then left it vacant. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />