Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the Agency Director to 1) work with Beam Development and the property owner to extend the timeline for the purchase option agreements on the Centre Court Building and adjacent lot, and the Washburne Building, 2) work towards an assignment of the purchase options to Beam, and 3) continue to work with Beam on elements of acquisition and redevelopment financing consistent with the amounts and terms outlined in this agenda item. If an extension of the option agreement timeline is not approved prior to May 7, then the Agency Director shall inform the property owners and the escrow agent that the Urban Renewal Agency will not be acquiring the property and the deposit should be returned. If a satisfactory extension is approved, the Agency Director shall bring back the terms to be included in the assignment of the purchase options to Beam as soon as practicable. Ms. Bettman supported extending the timeline but she believed the City would be making a big mistake if it only pursued this. She wanted to combine encouraging Beam to renegotiate the timeline on the option and asking them for a non-refundable deposit of $475,000 by May 1 if the URA committed to purchasing the property by July 8. She asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to structure language for a substitute motion to place on the table. Ms. Solomon reiterated that it was incumbent on the council and the URA to help out the entity that won the RFP for the site across from the library. She called it foolish to place “all of the eggs in one basket” by purchasing the Centre Court site. She asked whether the City would pay whatever costs were associated with the extension according to the motion on the table. Mr. Pryor responded that his assumption was that Beam Development would assume this responsibility. Mr. Braud related that staff had suggested sharing the cost of an extension should it cost anything. Mr. Pryor preferred to hold Beam responsible for any costs. Mr. Zelenka hoped Connor/Woolley would view the extension as a way to make the project work to the benefit of both the community and themselves. He indicated he would oppose Ms. Bettman’s substitute motion as he did not want to commit to purchasing the property. Ms. Taylor averred that the City had to take some risk. She opined that splitting up ownership of the downtown property was a goal in itself. She believed that the City was already taking some risk with existing money. She asserted that the City should put everything it had into trying to help Beam Develop- ment. Mr. Clark commented that he hoped that the Opus Group would continue interest in redeveloping the th downtown. He knew of at least one local developer that had an RFP for the 10 Avenue site. He would hate to see the City in a position in which only an out-of-town developer such as Opus could do the work there because the City had invested all of its money in another project. He said he had intended to vote no until he heard that included in the motion was that Beam Development would pay for the extension. He indicated he would now support the motion. Mr. Clark asked how much the last extension had cost the City of Eugene. Mr. Braud replied that the first extension had cost $30,000 and the second one $25,000. Ms. Ortiz said she wanted to see the City keep the building rather than see it razed. She noted that if the City owned the property it could potentially become the new city hall if Beam Development pulled out. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2008 Page 6 Work Session