CC Minutes - 10/27/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

federal funding was not available, it was willing to utilize Eugene taxpayers to pay for the $7.8 million in transportation infrastructure. She said in addition the GSA suggested that money from the sale of the property should be invested in the urban renewal district. She commented that the money was apparently borrowed from the Fleet Fund and if not paid back, the taxpayers would again be responsible. She stated her biggest problem with the motion was that GSA was asking for a commitment from the City to pay for the infrastructure, and had added more transportation infrastructure than what had been elevated in priority in the capital improvement program (CIP), such as the overpass. She said the request for $10 million, $20 million, or $30 million in additional improvement should be considered a renegotiation of the existing contract and addressed in an executive session. Mr. Taylor said the City was trying to address the GSA's concerns by demonstrating it had a legal way to ensure that the courthouse would not be an island without pedestrian and vehicle access, consistent with the plan the City had articulated, by identifying urban renew funds as a secondary plan for funding. Ms. Bettman asked why the GSA contract was not enforceable if the City had met its obligations. Mr. Klein responded that the contract was enforceable and that the GSA was obligated to purchase the property. He said the GSA was not obligated to construct the courthouse under the terms of the contract and was seeking the additional assurances in order to proceed. Ms. Nathanson asked for an explanation of the "additional" improvements the GSA had requested. Mr. Taylor said the GSA had expressed a preference for the project as articulated in two phases: Phase 1 for $1.7 million, and Phase 2, the balance, which totaled $7.6 million in its entirety. He said if that could be delivered through federal funding, it would meet all of the concerns and allow the GSA to go forward with the construction schedule. He said the pedestrian bridge would not be required, as the GSA preferred the at- grade solution. He said if only part of that could be delivered, the GSA wanted to ensure that there was some way for pedestrian access to the site. Ms. Nathanson said it did not appear that $10 million to $30 million additional improvements were actually requested, given that both the City and the GSA preferred an at-grade solution. She said there was no authorization to automatically spend funds to relieve the federal government of its obligation to provide funding. She asked how likely it was that the alternative funding plan would need to be implemented. Mr. Taylor said he thought that federal funding would be forthcoming, based on assurances from members of the congressional delegation. Ms. Nathanson said she could support the proposal as a backup strategy as long as it was understood that the strategy was not a substitute for the plan for federal funding. Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to extend discussion of the item un- til 7:20 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Taylor replied that the total of $7.6 million included the $1.7 million. Mr. Pap~ asked staff to provide an analysis of how firm those numbers were, the source of the estimates, and what would happen if the costs were higher. He expressed concern that the City would find itself in the same position it experienced with the Ferry Street bridge project. He said the proposal was acceptable as a MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 11 Work Session