Laserfiche WebLink
actions and other options and agreements other than the option agreements and renewals to <br />be brought back to the agency for final authorization. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked that the motion be amended to indicate the council would review the work done on <br />September 10. Mr. Zelenka preferred to defer to the mayor and manager to see if that worked on the <br />schedule, but indicated that was his general intent. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman believed that selecting a developer at this point made a sham of the public process. The <br />developer will make money but the City will not know what will be built for at least a year. She was not <br />won over by arguments about public process and suggested that residents would not want to participate <br />because they would have no impact on the final design. She noted that in its response to the Request for <br />Proposals, KGW indicated it understood that there was no design review or similar process required, and <br />that the land use entitlement was a function of satisfying City code requirements. In other words, the <br />company only had to follow the code to receive $35 million in public money. She found that very troubling. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said the council did not have a price tag for the KWG project and she did not think that <br />councilors should be making statements about subsidies if it was not known if it was true. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon pointed out that things had changed since the RFP. She said the mayor reminded the council <br />that even the Beam group did not define what it planned for the Aster property. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon determined from Ms. Muir that the added elements of Mr. Zelenka were workable. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Zelenka and the developers for trying to accommodate the City. He agreed that the <br />RFPs originally submitted were not relevant in light of the input received. He found it odd that Ms. Bettman <br />would suggest that there would be no public participation. He believed the public would be involved in the <br />design process. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka did not agree the process was a sham. He said the success of the process depended on it was <br />designed and implemented. The motion would not result in a deal being signed but in an MOU that would <br />create a process that would lead a plan to inform the development agreement, which would be the basis of <br />any future deal. The council had to “sign off” on all that, and the council could reject what was proposed if <br />it did not meet the City’s goals. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said he asked the people against the KWG project to describe their vision of downtown, and <br />they described the KWG project to him. He was trying to break down the barriers to moving forward and <br />take advantage of the best in the two proposals. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to postpone action on the motion until the <br />next meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked why the council should postpone action on the motion. Ms. Taylor wanted the public to be <br />aware of what the council was about to do so they could get in touch with the councilors. Mr. Clark <br />suggested that the council had already heard from the public and the motion on the table merely started the <br />process. He asked again why the council would want to postpone action. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said he would be happy to vote today as he liked the proposal but the council could give the <br />public a couple of days to allow the public to react. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />