Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark asked if the preliminary work, such as an environmental assessment, had begun. Mr. Braud affirmed that there had been an environmental assessment of the Centre Court Building and Beam had undertaken some work on asbestos in the building. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Braud confirmed that Beam would be taking a another look at the building prior to making a commitment to buy it. Mr. Clark asked what was known about asbestos levels in the building. Mr. Braud replied that it was assumed asbestos was in the building, but Beam would need to conduct its own asbestos investigation. He added that the City was working under the assumption that the purchase option had been assigned to the purchaser. Mr. Clark asked for information regarding asbestos levels. Mr. Braud responded that he did not have the information but would try to find it for Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark asked who else was “courting” ORI. Ms. Muir replied that she was not sure the City was aware of all of the offers on the table for them and she was also not sure they should speak to that. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Muir said the City was not actively helping anyone else. Mr. Clark wondered how tying up all of the URA money in the Beam project would affect the RFP that was out for the property across from the public library. Mr. Braud replied that it was not yet known what the proposals would look like. He said given the City’s prior experience he would anticipate that the City would have to participate in the project to a certain extent. He added that the “numbers were challenging downtown.” Mr. Clark asked if it was possible that the City could find itself in a bind if it applied all of the funding to the Beam project. Mr. Braud responded that there were a lot of contingencies in the Beam project. He thought it possible that if the City purchased the property, and Beam backed out, the City would have a substantial investment there and would have to initiate another RFP process for another project. Mr. Clark was troubled by this. He was aware of several potential RFPs for the property across from the library. He was concerned that the City would find itself in a position of owning a “$3 million hole in the th ground” with no plan to fill it and hampering the ability to develop the 10 Avenue site. Mr. Clark noted that the AIS indicated that the City was counting on Beam bringing $4 million in equity and asked where this would come from. Mr. Braud responded that it was comprised of a combination of cash and deferred developer fees. Mr. Zelenka supported the project. He recalled that he had pushed for Beam to be involved in this based on the Beam projects he had toured in Portland. He observed that a majority of the obstacles to the develop- ment were on the Beam side of things. He did not want to own the properties without there being a good chance that Beam would move forward. He underscored that at present, the City did not have a project, and neither did Beam. He felt that given time Beam could resolve its uncertainties. He asked if they would be willing to pay for an extension. Mike Sullivan, division manager for the PDD Community Development Division, responded that at present it was not known how much the extension would cost. He said the history on such options was that changes in terms cost an investment in cash. He related that the City had started a discussion with Beam and asked them to indicate under which conditions they would bring money to the table. He stated that until there was a clear picture from the seller regarding what might be involved it would be difficult to return to Beam. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2008 Page 3 Work Session