Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon asked that the motion be considered as two separate motions. Ms. Bettman had no objection, and she and Ms. Taylor accepted that as a friendly amendment to the motion. Ms. Bettman said that staff received notice from Beam it needed more time to secure tenants, and staff only received that letter that afternoon. That issue was beyond staff’s control. She believed the time frame was largely dependent on the developer. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Manager pro tem Jones indicated the developer wanted 90 days from the time the options expired. Ms. Bettman suggested that could be negotiated within the parameters of the motion. City Manager pro tem Jones pointed out the City could not meet the time frame for the development agreement because Beam would be unable to respond by that date. Mr. Braud said that would give the City only 45 days to negotiate an agreement, which was very difficult. Mr. Poling recalled that the council had discussed the properties north of Broadway because of their location at a major intersection. He asked staff to prepare text to include consideration of the acquisition of the properties identified as Roberts, Taco Time, and the Scan Design. City Attorney Klein indicated that at this point, the Beam-related part of the motion was on the table, and he suggested that Mr. Poling offer a motion after the two motions had been dealt with. Mr. Clark said approval of the motion meant Eugene would buy the buildings without knowing if it had a developer in place. City Manager pro tem Jones suggested that the City could negotiate option extensions rather than purchase the properties. She confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, that the City was negotiating with the only property owner on the Beam project. Mr. Zelenka said he had supported the ballot measure because it included a lot of housing and development patterns that would have transformed the downtown area. Now he did not think the City would see housing downtown for many years and the downtown area would probably look the same in five years as it does today. The City would be unlikely to see any private investment in that area in the near-term or housing that it did not subsidize. Now the City was talking about heavily subsidizing a single office building with one tenant. He questioned whether that was in the public’s interest but he suspected his ward, which supported the more comprehensive ballot measure, would support the lesser project as well. He thought the project was “pretty speculative” but had confidence in Beam because of the company’s past projects. Mr. Zelenka favored moving forward with the Beam project but it appeared the company needed more time. City Attorney Klein said that under the option agreements, the City must give notice of its intent to acquire a property by March 24; it then had one month to do due diligence and within 90 days the City would close on the properties or it would not. He said that would also require a supplemental budget allocation. Mr. Zelenka thought that problematic in terms of timing. Mr. Zelenka said he had also considered putting forth the acquisition of the Diamond lot because he thought its absence made the development of the other property on the block problematic. It did not seem too expensive a purchase to pursue. Ms. Taylor clarified the details of the letter the City received from Beam. Speaking to Mr. Zelenka’s concerns about the development of a single-occupant office building, Ms. Taylor said that Oregon Research Institute (ORI), the company in question, had clients that arrived throughout the day and evening. She wanted to proceed with redevelopment of the Washburne Building as soon as possible. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 9 Work Session