Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Ms. Taylor asked how much had already been spent on redevelopment of the Broadway Street area. She averred that they had already risked a lot of money for nothing. She felt they now had the opportunity to spend “a small amount” on something that could be accomplished. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to substitute a motion to direct the Agency Director to offer a proposal to Beam Development that it would provide the agency a $470,000 non-refundable deposit by the May deadline in exchange for the Urban Renewal Agency’s commitment to purchase the property by the July deadline and that the Urban Re- newal Agency would restructure its loan so that the Urban Renewal Agency would commit to it. If Beam Development should not agree to this proposal the Agency Director shall then work with Beam Development and the property owner to extend the timeline for the pur- chase option agreements on the Centre Court Building and adjacent lot and Washburne Building and work toward an assignment of the purchase options to Beam Development and continue to work with Beam Development on elements of acquisition and redevelopment fi- nancing consistent with the amounts and items outlined in the 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. If a satisfactory extension is approved, the Agency Di- rector shall bring back terms to be included in the assignment of the purchase options to Beam Development as soon as practicable. Ms. Solomon indicated that she would not support the motion. She took exception to Ms. Taylor’s comments that money had been spent on “nothing.” She stressed that the people who served on the Broadway Development Advisory Committee had been very committed to the process and to the community and the process had provided a “great result” which would provide input to guide all of the future downtown development. She hoped Ms. Taylor would extend more respect to that process. Mr. Zelenka asked what would happen between May 1 and July 8. Mr. Braud responded that assuming the City extended the option agreements, they expected a decision from ORI by the end of April. He noted that Beam had received commitments from other tenants. He related that the bank had asked that they conduct a market analysis, which was forecast to be completed on May 26. He said at that point the development plan would be complete and they would submit it to potential financing partners. He stated that the other approvals necessary would occur by August 1 and Beam Development indicated willingness to sign a binding agreement by August 15, with the purchase of the property to occur 90 days subsequent to that. Mr. Zelenka asked what would happen between May 8 and July 8 in the original proposal. Mr. Braud replied that the City would work towards closing. He added that there was adequate time to close on the property, assuming that Beam had made the deposit. Mr. Zelenka surmised that Ms. Bettman’s motion would push Beam into a faster timeline than had been proposed. He said in order for Beam Development to agree to the $470,000 deposit they would have to be very sure the project would move forward and they would have to complete the items they requested more time to complete in a shorter timeframe. Mr. Braud responded that the motion provided a certainty that the City would purchase the property. Mr. Zelenka doubted that Beam Development would agree to this, but if they did and still could not complete the transaction he did not want the City to be the owner of the property. Mr. Clark concurred. He opposed the substitute motion, adding that he was “only barely” for the initial motion. He did not feel confidence in the current course of action. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2008 Page 7 Work Session