CC Minutes - 01/25/10 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Brown agreed LCD's development project would be a fabulous project for the downtown area but noted he had a problem with the language of the motion that had been suggested by staff and maintained that it should be revised to expressly postpone directing the Agency Director's negotiation of the purchase and sale agreement until after LCC had completed its feasibility study for the development project. He believed that turning over the negotiation authority to the City Manager prematurely, in that regard, would mean that the council would "lose a large part of our voice" with respect to the property acquisition. He believed further information regarding LCD's feasibility study and the subsequent property acquisition was needed. Ms. Muir stated that staff's intention with the suggested motion had been to return to the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA) at the end of February with more detailed information regarding the terms of the property acquisition after further negotiation and discussion with LCC representatives. She reminded Mr. Brown that the motion had expressly stated that the Agency Director would return to the URA Board for final approval of the terms of the property acquisition. Mr. Brown supported the project but believed that more information regarding LCD's offer for the subject property was needed before proceeding. Ms. Piercy commented on previous negotiations for other downtown property development projects. Ms. Muir noted that the current level of information and the current process surrounding the City's consideration of the LCC development project was very similar to that which would have been done in an RFP process. She noted that current considerations had placed the City and LCC in a very favorable position to move forward. Mr. Poling reiterated his support for the LCC development project and noted that LCC remained a very important partner in the community. Ms. Taylor was concerned about LCD's intention to abandon its current downtown facility but noted that such concerns would be addressed later. Ms. Taylor asked for more specific information regarding the nature of the resources that LCC hoped the City would provide with respect to their project development plans. Ms. Spilde replied that such resources would likely come in the form of direct financial assistance or indirectly in the form of waived systems development charges or other strategies. She noted that more specific discussion in that regard would take place in the future. Ms. Taylor indicated she would support a waiver of systems development charges for the LCC development project. Ms. Taylor voiced her support for community colleges in general and hoped she might have the opportunity to teach at LCD's new facility. Mr. Clark referred to Mr. Brown's earlier comment and expressed that the suggested motion did not remove the authority of the URA with respect to LCD's development project but rather allowed the Agency Director to more accurately determine the nature of an agreement with LCC in a manner similar to what had been done with previous development processes. MINUTES Eugene City Council January 25, 2010 Page 7 Work Session