Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Brown’s comments regarding the City’s potential purchase of LCC’s Willamette Street property. She believed that the City did not need to own another empty building in the downtown area. Ms. Taylor noted she had made a motion at the council meeting on March 8 for the City Manager to consider other sources for funding assistance to LCC. Mr. Klein, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, stated that until the urban renewal plan amendment was approved, a referendum by voters might preclude the $8 million in funding assistance for LCC’s downtown project although such a referendum in and of itself could not be used to terminate the project. Mr. Braud recognized the prevalent assumption that LCC would not proceed in earnest on their downtown development project without the site control and property disposition that was to be provided through the City’s funding assistance from the urban renewal plan amendment. Ms. Piercy reminded those present that the $1.2 million for the purchase of LCC’s current Willamette Street facility was part of the $8 million funding assistance from the urban renewal plan amendment and was not additional to that overall amount. Ms. Solomon stated she had previously been led to believe that LCC had planned to retain the Willamette Street property and had been very surprised to learn of LCC’s intention to divest itself of the property. Ms. Solomon further believed that there would be no City funds available beyond the $1.2 million purchase price to develop the Willamette Street property into a usable facility. Ms. Solomon believed that more information was needed regarding the City’s plans for the Willamette Street property should it eventually be purchased. Ms. Solomon disagreed with Ms. Piercy’s assessment of the City’s negotiations and urban renewal discussions with LCC as a public partnership and alternatively stated that the purpose of urban renewal was to increase the amount of private and taxable entities in the downtown area. Additionally, Ms. Solomon noted that LCC was a public agency that would be exempt from paying taxes on its downtown facility. Ms. Solomon pointed out that LCC’s current downtown facility on Willamette Street still used steam heat and that the City might be saddled with the responsibility of converting such a system in the near future should the property be purchased in the manner that had been suggested. Mr. Braud responded to Ms. Solomon’s comments and noted that there was a certain amount of due diligence still to be performed on the part of both LCC and the City of Eugene. He noted that many elements of the due diligence process would concern the continued viability of LCC’s current Willamette Street property. th Mr. Zelenka believed that in the absence of the LCC downtown project, the 10 and Charnelton site would not be developed by any agency for the foreseeable future. th Mr. Zelenka noted that any private agency that might have developed the 10 and Charnelton site would inevitably have attempted to utilize a multi-use property tax exemption (MUPTE). Mr. Zelenka confirmed that the first part of the staff-recommended motion, which specified the sale of the 10th and Charnelton site, contained a repurchase option for the City to reacquire the property should LCC ever choose not to move forward with their project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2010 Page 6 Work Session