Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

agreement and the Urban Renewal Agency ultimately decided whether the redevelopment projects should receive Urban Renewal money. In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Braud stated that the next decision point was scheduled for September. Ms. Bettman indicated that she still supported the Beam Development project. She averred that when the motion “died of its own weight, cost, and uncertainty” she hoped the City would look at concrete proposals that it had the ability to move on instead of going through a “long convoluted decision-making with the developers in the driver’s seat and the public in the back seat.” She thought the City could already be breaking ground on projects. She believed that if the proposal was approved that the City would not be fulfilling its fiduciary obligation to the taxpayers. She likened it to buying “champagne and caviar with food stamps.” She asserted that it was not a cost-effective way to do business. She opposed the motion. Ms. Solomon expressed optimism about the proposal that Mr. Zelenka and Mayor Piercy had put together. She wanted to ensure that motion indicated that the developer and the community maintained a dialogue. She believed it would make a great “end product.” Mr. Zelenka affirmed that this was his intent. Mr. Clark said he had been very impressed with the KWG Development Partners proposal. He had also been impressed with the work that had been done by Mr. Zelenka, Mayor Piercy, and staff over time to refine the proposal. He felt the motion looked like it had the support it needed and that it would “finally breathe some life into the downtown.” He related that the vast majority of emails he had received on this item had supported taking action. Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to have the Mayor appoint the committee members. Mr. Zelenka accepted the friendly amendment as did the second. Mr. Pryor stated that one of the key elements of the discussion had been the role of the public to help shape the project. He felt it was critical to conduct the public engagement in good faith and with sincerity. He related that he had just participated in a process to hire a consultant to help facilitate a discussion involving different groups and the process had been undertaken efficiently and amiably. Ms. Ortiz supported the motion although she was not “100 percent there at this point.” She needed to see how the project would “look and feel.” She said she was concerned about the amount of urban renewal money the project could take and that the moment the developers had the go-ahead, they could potentially do as they saw fit. Mr. Poling also had supported the staff’s proposal. He still believed it was the best proposal, but because of Mr. Zelenka’s work and input from the community, he thought the current proposal was workable. He commented that he would prefer to have the advisory committee selection process remain the same, but he would support the motion. th Mr. Zelenka shared Mr. Poling’s optimism. He said he also wanted the Charnelton Street/10 Avenue site to be filled as soon as possible, but he felt the proposal was a better way to go as it would integrate the smaller project into the larger project. He stated that the end result would be five times the amount of housing. Ms. Taylor reiterated her objections. She commented that the councilors had received many emails but she averred that a “great campaign” had been conducted and a model letter for submittal had been supplied to MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 7 Work Session