Laserfiche WebLink
day and evening. She wanted to proceed with redevelopment of the Washburne Building as soon as <br />possible. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, with the consent of her second, changed the motion to direct staff to return with the draft <br />development agreement as soon as practicable. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the City should acquire the properties in question, for which it had options. She <br />questioned the business model used to manage the properties, which degraded the properties and their ability <br />to be used. She did not think the City would lose by taking the properties out of their current ownership and <br />the prices being asked are consistent with the appraisals. She noted her interest in acquiring the Shaw <br />Med/Diva buildings as well. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman commiserated with staff on the failure of the recent ballot measure but hoped that it could still <br />work to pursue the project with all its expertise, and suggested if it could muster some enthusiasm, “that <br />would be nice too.” She asked staff to try to put a deal together “for the sake of the community.” Ms. <br />Bettman said she did not want to inventory the long list of mismanaged City initiatives, including ORI on the <br />Sears Pit Site. She recalled that the council had strongly supported closing the funding gap in the financing <br />for the ORI building, but ORI dropped out because it could not close the funding gap, even though the <br />council gave staff explicit direction to do so. She hoped that everyone was working in good faith on the <br />project. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark had great confidence in the integrity of staff and thanked it for its hard work. He was willing to <br />support the motion because it appeared the council had some options. Although the opportunity available <br />was smaller than the council majority hoped for, he believed “incremental was good” and if the City <br />addressed public safety and made some minor code adjustments, he believed it could attract investment <br />downtown with an incremental approach. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon commended staff and its expertise. In regard to ORI, she said she had not voted to close the <br />funding gap for ORI. She agreed that the council was at a disadvantage coming back to the table in March <br />2008 and she did not want to give the building owners more leverage. She asked if there was an advantage <br />to letting the options expire and allowing Beam to pursue them instead. City Manager pro tem Jones said <br />that Beam recognized the need for some subsidy from the City; the amount was undetermined, and the <br />options were one possibility. If the City wanted to ensure that something happened downtown, it would <br />have to work with Beam to make it happen. Ms. Solomon agreed that the City needed to provide a lift but <br />suggested it could happen at other intervals through the project. City Manager pro tem Jones indicated the <br />staff asked Beam if it could pursue options on the Washburne Building and the response was reflected in the <br />letter. She said the Centre Court Building and Aster Pit were not the developer’s highest priority. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor supported the motion and any incremental action the council could take. He said the question of <br />the options was a wide open one for discussion at another time. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy was pleased that Beam continued to believe there was value in its continued partnership with <br />the City. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman briefly reviewed the motion. <br /> <br />The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />