Laserfiche WebLink
and said she would like to see such a list of conditions on the City’s part. She said the council needed to <br />think about other things it could do with the money, such as invest in a civic center and purchase pedestrian <br />th th <br />amenities for 6and 7 avenues. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ms. Taylor’s question, Mr. Zelenka defined a public investment as a situation in which public <br />funds are used to support a project one does like, and a subsidy is a public investment in a project one does <br />not like. He agreed that the council needed to determine the level of risk. Risk was relative; the bigger bold <br />projects had more benefits and greater risks. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said he would like to see staff provide information about the possible impacts of a worst case <br />scenario. He asked that the financial information in the packet be summarized. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said the council needed more conversation about the risk and benefits of inaction. He found the <br />current situation downtown unacceptable and said the risks of doing nothing were high and also unaccept- <br />able. When the council discussed urban renewal he would like to hear it talk about the purpose of it and the <br />benefits involved. He understood the reason such a district was created was to leverage private funds and <br />have a greater impact on downtown. He did not think the district’s intent was to underwrite the costs of <br />public infrastructure. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said in terms of the specific development, she thought that due diligence would require the City <br />to do a cost-benefit analysis of downtown regarding carrying capacity for housing and office use and <br />determine what the demographics could support and to identify the lowest risk investments for the City, <br />which the council was told by the downtown panel was housing, and the higher risks involved. She wanted <br />to have that information to evaluate any development proposal and did not want to have a cost-benefit <br />analysis of the specific development, as that would be missing the point of what the City needed and what <br />constituted a wise investment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested that one small-scale development could lead to another such project and then <br />another, which could equal the large-scale investment, but that was not reflected in the projections provided <br />to the council. She thought the council needed to see that information. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked that ancillary and social benefits and costs be listed in conjunction with the projects. He <br />acknowledged that task would be subjective. <br /> <br /> <br />B. WORK SESSION: West Broadway Project Update <br /> <br />Mr. Braud provided a PowerPoint presentation updating the council on the West Broadway project. He <br />reviewed the three options before the council and briefly noted the timelines for options 1 and 2. <br /> <br />Option 1: Select KWG Development Partners <br /> <br />Option 2: Select Beam Development <br /> <br />Option 3: Take no action on the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) responses <br /> <br />Mr. Braud reiterated the upcoming public input opportunity on April 30 and noted the upcoming council <br />work sessions scheduled on the topic on May 9 and May 11. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy encouraged councilors to attend the public input opportunity. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br />