Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with <br />acquisition of the Diamond property and return to the council with draft Request for Pro- <br />th <br />posal (RFP) options for 10 and Charnelton that are within the financial constraints of the <br />urban renewal district’s $33 million spending limit, with adequate time for exercising op- <br />tions. <br /> <br />City Attorney Klein said the Diamond option was both cashed and an exchange of property; he asked if the <br />motion was specific to the value of the land. Ms. Bettman said yes. She did not want to see a proposal that <br />increased the spending limit of the district. She added that there might be other financial resources outside <br />the district the council employed. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling moved to amend the motion to include the Roberts’ Taco Time property and <br />Scan Design property. The motion failed for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mr. Poling’s motion, Mr. Clark wanted more discussion of those properties and suggested there <br />was adequate time to do so. He also recalled discussion in advance of the ballot measure about keeping the <br />businesses downtown whole through the process, and he thought the motion could have a significant impact <br />on Bradford’s by eliminating its parking. He welcomed suggestions. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon also was concerned about the impact of the motion on Bradford’s. She wanted to send out <br />another RFP but if the council approved the motion it had more than two-thirds of the block and it seemed to <br />her the council could go smaller or larger. She thought it the “wrong chunk of the block” to send out for an <br />RFP. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka suggested the next discussion was whether to buy the Shaw Med/Diva or Roberts building; the <br />City did not have enough money to do both. He believed that the council should discuss whether it should <br />focus on the intersection or control of the whole block, which he found an interesting tradeoff. Alternatively, <br />the council could do nothing and use the money to assist Beam. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman reminded the council of the overwhelming defeat of the ballot measure, saying people did not <br />want to go bigger; they wanted incremental and affordable and they wanted the two pits filled. The council <br />attempted to use those pits as leverage to get the public to spend money, and now the council was left with <br />the pits. The Sears Pit was there because the city manager tore the building down, and she thought the City <br />needed to fix it. It was long overdue. The City had a small proposal for housing on the site and she thought <br />it should continue on that track. She said if the ballot measure had passed it was likely the retail would have <br />gotten built first, followed possibly by the housing but only if the developers deemed it favorable for the <br />market, and it was likely that the developers would have sought code amendments to build surface parking. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she would entertain as a friendly amendment to the motion that the RFPs contain specific <br />strategies for preserving Bradford’s as she agreed with those speaking in its support. Ms. Taylor had no <br />objection. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz expressed appreciation for all the work done by staff on the project and for its due diligence. She <br />did not think staff woke in the morning and thought about how to spend money needlessly. She supported <br />the motion and said she would also support the addition of the Scan Design and Shaw Med/Diva properties. <br />Ms. Ortiz said the City could not do it all so it should do it incrementally. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />