Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

along High Street. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the appearance of the south side of the structure th along 8 Avenue and asked for more response from staff. Mr. Papé agreed with comments from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Kelly. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that there should be a recommendation regarding the other quarter-block instead of just waiting to see what happened with it. City Manager Taylor clarified that the property in question would result in a th corner on 8 Avenue and Pearl Street when the City’s property was split to facilitate a trade. He disagreed with Ms. Bettman’s characterization of a subsidy to Whole Foods. He felt the City was actually receiving the subsidy by obtaining a parking structure at less expense. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to negoti- ate a development agreement and related legal documents with Broadway High As- sociates and Gerding/Edlen Developers for the Whole Foods Development Project, based on the public garage development Option 4, and to bring back final terms for council approval. Ms. Ortiz asked if partnering with Whole Foods would make it less expensive to build a parking structure. City Manager Taylor replied that the structure would probably cost more if built separately and also have a different design concept than the 260 space design recommended in Option 4. Mr. Kelly proposed a friendly amendment to add the following language: The de- velopment agreement shall include a not-to-exceed limit on the payment to devel- oper of $7 million. Ms. Solomon and Ms. Ortiz accepted the amendment. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about and asked for feedback from others on proposed financing that appeared to take all of the revenues from the entire Riverfront Urban Renewal District to pay for the public parking garage. He acknowledged that the anticipated development in the area could move the increment up quickly but was interested in other financing options that could reduce the impact on urban renewal funds. City Manager Taylor said that would be addressed in the agenda item summary for the February 22, 2006, work session. Mr. Papé stated that his son was employed by Gerding/Edlen Developers and asked if there was any conflict of interest. Mr. Klein replied that there was no actual conflict. Mr. Poling reiterated his support for the project. He said while the project was referred to as the “Whole Foods project” it was actually the East Broadway Development. He said that this part of the project would stimulate other businesses in the East Broadway area and be good for the community. He heard from many people that redevelopment in the area was desirable, as was additional downtown parking. He pointed out that all of the motions required the agreement to be brought back to the council for final approval and that gave staff and the developer time to work on a proposal that would satisfy the council’s interests and concerns. Ms. Bettman stated that she was adamantly opposed to the proposal as construed. She said there were many options to consider once the council had seen the updated parking study. She said that $5.5 million in urban renewal funds, plus a $2.25 City contribution and $2.5 million to finance the bond debt might not necessar- ily be subsidizing Whole Foods but it was subsidizing the developer and the City should know for certain if it was going to save money. She said the way to determine that money was being saved was to put the project out to competitive bid. She said money could be saved if the public was not building retail and illustrated her design concept for reconfiguring the development and use of the property.