CC Minutes - 09/28/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman said she supported reopening of the park although she did not think it would have all of the benefits the neighborhood assumed it would because it would still subject to the issues that affected many urban parks. She said the agreement contained benefits for the developer to which she could not agree. She asked if the owners planned to submit a multiple-unit property tax exemption (MUPTE) application. Mr. Hostick replied that they had expressed some interest in MUPTE. Ms. Bettman asked if trees currently on the property would be removed in the new configuration. Mr. Hostick replied that there were no heritage trees and most of the trees on the site were smaller fruit trees. Ms. Bettman asked if there was any guarantee that living spaces and windows of the new structure would be oriented to the park. She objected to the provision granting right of first refusal and to the provision related to alley assessment fees and would move to eliminate them from the agreement. She stated that if the neighborhood and neighborhood organization thought the trade was a good idea, they should be willing to absorb some of the impact and questioned why City taxpayers should pay $37,000 to improve the alley under the agreement if the taxpayers did not currently have to pay that amount. Mr. Kelly pointed out that if there was no agreement or property trade the City would still be paying $37,000 for alley assessment under the current configuration; the City would pay nothing only if the agreement was executed without the proposed alley assessment provision. He stated that the MUPTE issue was not relevant to the trade and if a MUPTE application was submitted at some future time, it would be approved or denied on a case-by-case basis, as the agreement provided no guarantee. He noted that the neighborhood included at least 50 homeowners, and that many renters, such as him, were permanent residents of the neighborhood. He asked for clarification of the right of first refusal provision and whether the Quinneys would be required to match an offer over fair market value and whether there would be efforts made to preserve the park’s existing brickwork. Mr. Lidz said he thought the provision would require that the Quinneys match an offer. Parks and Open Space director Johnny Medlin explained that the right of first refusal proposed by the Quinneys and included in the agreement was based on the appraised price and not matching other offers. Mr. Kelly felt in that case the right of first refusal went too far and he would move to amend the agreement during the next round of discussion. Ms. Bettman stated her intention to amend the motion to remove the right of first refusal because it was an additional benefit given to the property owner regardless of how it was configured. She said the people bidding would know that they were bidding against someone had a first right of refusal instead of an open bidding process and there was nothing stopping the developer from bidding in an open bidding process along with every other person who might want to. She saw no reason from a public policy standpoint to elevate the playing field that one person was on. She said if the property ever came up for sale the City needed to dispose of it on the open market. She did not see why one person should be more equal than everybody else. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the agreement by removing the first right of refusal clause. Mr. Kelly said the reason that one person was more equal than others was that if the parties could not come to terms the City would continue to have a closed park. He was not willing to grant everything and noted that during development of the proposed agreement, a number of suggested points were rejected. He said his intent was to move to amend by modifying the right of refusal so it would be consistent with Mr. Lidz’s earlier description. He said the idea was that if there was competition at a fair market value the Quinneys MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 28, 2005 Page 7 Work Session