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

Home Browse Search

would win over an identical bid. He said the amendment would also request consideration of saving brickwork and trees to the extent possible and clarify orientation of the building, windows and parking. He indicated he would not support Ms. Bettman’s motion. Mr. Papé questioned whether continuing the right of first refusal into the future would present a conflict with the rule of perpetuities. Mr. Lidz said he did not think there was a problem but he would research the issue. Mr. Pryor said the discussion had focused on two items of value: the ability to be at the front of the line in terms of who could buy the property and what the price of the property would be. He said that striking the phrase “based on the appraised value of the property at the time of sale” from the provision would make it consistent with Mr. Lidz’s description of the common understanding of the right of first refusal and retain the first item of value but not the second item. He did not object to granting the owners right of first of refusal to the adjacent park property if they could meet a price that was acceptable to the City. He would vote against Ms. Bettman’s motion to strike the entire provision but would support an amendment that would restore the City’s ability to set a price on the property. Ms. Bettman agreed that the right of first refusal provision was an item of value bestowed on the property owner along with all the other values being bestowed on the property owner. She said that the City would collect the difference in the appraised value because the owners were getting a bigger piece of property but reinvest it in what would essentially be their front lawn. The motion to amend the agreement failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in fa- vor. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the agreement by striking clause 2.G and replacing it with “If the City decides to sell the property in the future, have the right of first refusal to purchase the property at the appraised value of the property at the time of sale, or the highest offer received from a third party, whichever is higher” and further to clarify in the agreement the building orientation towards the park and the parking orienta- tion towards the alley and further to consider the preservation of trees in the reconfigured park and to consider the preservation of some of the brickwork in the reconfigured park. Ms. Bettman questioned explicitly spelling out the ability of the property owner to have the first right of refusal would be a disincentive for people to make an offer if it would only raise the price of the property. She said it would result in selling the property for less than the price could be if it was offered on the open market. She did not want to see the precedent set. Mr. Kelly said it was unfortunate that so much time was being spent on a contingency that might never come into play. He said the park had a much better chance of success with the support of the Police Department, the West University Business Association and visibility from Hilyard Street. Mr. Papé offered an amendment to grant the right of first refusal through December 31, 2045. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Poling accepted it as a friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor said she would vote for the amendment in case the agreement was approved but reiterated her objection to any right of first refusal provision and concern with “considering” the trees instead of stronger language. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 28, 2005 Page 8 Work Session