Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark asked what would give the City confidence that more time would provide the opportunity to meet its milestones in the future. Mr. Braud replied that staff had worked with Beam on this particular recommendation. He said they had agreed with Beam that its best opportunity would be to allow the company more time to go through the approval process with the bank. He added that while there was no guarantee, this represented the best opportunity for Beam to succeed in staff’s opinion. th Mr. Zelenka remarked that he would be “shocked” if any development occurred at the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street site without a subsidy. He ascertained from Ms. Jones that Beam Development had asked for an extension. He said if he thought this was a “hot property” he would be more inclined to purchase the property. He thought the risk of assuming the City could purchase it and find another entity to redevelop it was great. He related that he had spoken to Peter Eggspuehler at a meeting and had asked him what issues had arisen in relation to moving forward. Mr. Eggspuehler indicated to him that getting the bank financing was critical, as was “nailing down” the tax credits, which was not possible by May 1. He supported giving them an extension. Ms. Solomon averred that at this point Beam had been “all talk” and no money. She noted that a year had passed since the City had initiated work with the development company. She did not feel the City was any closer to having the site redeveloped and questioned why. She opposed the City’s purchase of the building. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Braud clarified that the options listed were for both buildings. Ms. Solomon asked if renegotiating the price on the Washburne Building meant the City would have to let its option expire. Mr. Braud responded that Beam’s interest in the Washburne Building had to do with having a long-term vision for that block. He averred that there was a lot more value that could be generated in the Washburne Building going forward than was in the Centre Court Building. He said the question at this point was whether Beam was willing to buy the property at the current price. Ms. Solomon asked if it was possible to negotiate with them to come down in price. Mr. Sullivan responded that discussions had begun between Connor/Woolley and Beam Development at the City’s suggestion. He related that Connor/Woolley had come back to the City and indicated they would be willing to discuss price. Ms. Solomon wanted to see more commitment from Beam in the form “of a check.” Ms. Ortiz expressed concern about the project. She had heard the voters “loud and clear” and believed that they had indicated they did not want the spending limit of the Urban Renewal District to be increased but they supported working within the existing financial parameters. She agreed with Mr. Zelenka that people were not “flocking” to buy the property. She wanted to do something while there was some momentum. She believed the property redevelopment across from the library hinged on the Centre Court Building redevelopment. She did not perceive owning the building as a negative result. Mr. Sullivan noted that staff believed the price on the Centre Court Building to be fair. Mr. Pryor stated that the reason he intended to place Option 2 on the table was because it would move them toward getting the commitment. He thought that rather than buying the building and hoping it would work out, Option 2 would move Beam Development toward making more of a financial commitment. He said Beam would not make its commitment prior to May 8 but it also would not commit the City’s money to it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2008 Page 5 Work Session