Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Speaking to the motion, Ms. Solomon indicated that she vote against it as it was bad business and the City needed to move on with another developer. Mr. Papé stated that he could not support the motion. He said there was momentum for downtown redevelopment and Conner-Woolley had expressed an interest in the site. Mr. Papé proposed a substitute motion to direct the City Manager within 30 days to return with a request for proposals for sale of the Sears site. Ms. Solomon pro- vided the second. Ms. Bettman said that so far no players had come to the table, including Conner-Woolley and Giustina, and indicated that they wanted to do a project but had not asked for a public subsidy. She said that many people redeveloped property in downtown using their own money. She intended to vote against the motion. She said that ORI was dependent on partners and financial institutions that were not meeting the City’s timelines for the ORI project and she felt that the City should have patience. Mr. Pryor said he sensed the frustration with the ORI project but was not ready to halt the current process and start over again. He said ORI was a great organization attempting to carry out a good project but he was not willing to give ORI funds at this point. He would vote against the substitute motion but was not ready to vote in favor of the main motion either. He would be interested in options related to timelines or more opportunity to obtain funding or consider alternatives. Ms. Taylor said she would vote against the substitute motion as there was no better project for the downtown. She said the City had provided subsidies to many other projects. The substitute motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Papé, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voting in favor. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion to direct the City Manager to pursue a workable combination of the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program, Business Development Fund financing, downtown renewal tax increment financing, and City-provided financing options to address ORI’s financing gap suf- ficient to proceed with the project. In addition, to amend and reactivate the pur- chase and sale and development agreement to facilitate the success of the project and bring the final proposal back to the council. Ms. Ortiz said if ORI was a regular business she would agree with Ms. Solomon, but ORI was a nonprofit and did not have the expertise to move the project along at a different pace. She felt that perhaps ORI should pare down its vision to a more feasible project. Mr. Kelly said he would support Ms. Bettman’s motion because it specified the final agreement would be returned to the council. He wanted the process to continue but was not certain he would support the final product. He said the burden at this point was on ORI to show progress and provide solid financial information to the council well ahead of any final agreement. Ms. Taylor said she would support Ms. Bettman’s motion as there was nothing better for downtown than the ORI project. She said that ORI was a sustainable, clean business with well-paid employees. She said that people who worked downtown shopped downtown and ORI’s project would provide a stimulus for other types of development. Ms. Solomon said she would not support the motion and noted there was no timeline in Ms. Bettman’s motion.