CC Minutes - 05/24/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor shared his reluctance to keep “adding more words.” He did not think the language needed to include subjective terminology such as “very high quality.” Ms. Bettman asked what the language in the community standards for the Enterprise Zone had been. Mr. Braud replied that it had defined the jobs as having a living wage as compared to a benchmark. Mr. Papé arrived at 12:26 pm. Ms. Solomon reiterated that a business that ultimately rented from the owner of the development would not be something the City could determine in advance. Ms. Taylor remarked that if the City provided a subsidy, it would be “good” to require a living wage. She also supported the inclusion of language regarding having extended hours. She wanted to increase the nighttime population of the downtown area in order to make the area safer. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Ortiz voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Papé, and Mr. Pryor voting in op- position. The Mayor cast a vote in favor of the amendment and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy opined that the amendment would not “hogtie” anyone. Mr. Papé commented that it was his understanding that subsidies were a possibility but were not absolutely a part of the package. Ms. Bettman pointed to language on page 389 that indicated a preferred development team would possess a “strong relationship with key tenants” and asserted that this assumed that tenants would be retail. Mr. Braud responded that a person who came to the table with a tenant “in hand” would make a better proposal. as it was a benefit to the development to have a strong and desirable tenant. He said a “spec” building with office and retail with no tenants identified would be less attractive. Ms. Bettman asked what likelihood there was that anyone would speculate in a building with no tenants. Mr. Braud replied that it was unlikely but possible. Ms. Ortiz was comfortable with the language as written. She thought a desire to know who the tenants would be would benefit the RFP process. Mr. Kelly agreed that the sentence added nothing and could be perceived as restricting the sort of proposals the City was willing to consider. He suggested it be stricken. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the Development Objectives to de- lete the third point regarding a strong relationship with key tenants. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman opined that “preempting City Hall” might be ill-conceived. The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 5 Work Session