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