Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon said the council heard a compelling argument that there was a need for more parking downtown. The council spent considerable money to create an environment that attracted this type of project. She hoped the council moved forward and did not stall the process. She said the project was consistent with previous council discussions and established downtown goals in terms of making downtown more accessible and desirable for people to visit. Mr. Pryor agreed with Ms. Solomon that the need for additional parking had been established. The question was whether there would be economies of scale or value to be realized by building a public parking garage in conjunction with the Whole Foods development. He thought the answer to the question was yes and that considerable savings would be realized through the partnership and coordination of construction. He believed the partnership would be advantageous to all parties involved and would save public money. Mr. Pryor thought the financing package intriguing and creative and was persuaded to look on it favorably because the City contribution represented the least amount of out-of-pocket cash. He was supportive of the project and thought it would benefit downtown. Mr. Poling agreed with the remarks of Ms. Solomon and Mr. Papé. He said the proposal represented a window of opportunity for the council to address some long-established, but unaccomplished, City visions and goals for downtown. He agreed with Mr. Pryor about the financing package. The project would cost the City something but it would have a benefit. He said the proposal was not just about an individual development but about what the City had envisioned for that part of town for many years. Regarding the potential of County and federal involvement in the parking structure, Mr. Poling pointed out that many people would use the facility, not just those going to the County or federal offices. He would not blame the County for not being receptive to the City’s overtures for funding given the council’s recent interactions with the Board of County Commissioners. He thought some bad choices had been made with regard to how the City dealt with the County, and opportunities to work together had been lost. He said if there was anything he could do to “extend a hand across the bridge” or work with the federal government, he would do it. Mr. Poling also agreed the demand for parking had been proven and he consistently heard complaints about a lack of parking in downtown. He thought the project worthwhile and pointed out the motion merely started a process that would require final council approval. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Kelly it was likely another work session would be needed. Mr. Kelly said he supported the project and expected to support the City’s participation if City policies were satisfied and its interests were met. He did not think the proposal inconsistent with the concept of the City helping small businesses, and invited proposals from local small businesses either individually or in consortia. He noted that he had to leave the meeting at the scheduled ending time and asked that action be postponed if he had to leave. Mr. Kelly referred to the proposed land transaction and requested a written answer to the question of whether, when the exchange was done, the City would own part of the northern half block. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, City Manager Taylor indicated it would be useful if the council could take action that day, given that the motion merely started the process. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the motion until February 22, 2006. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Pryor voting no; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Papé, and Ms. Bettman voting yes; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2006 Page 7 Work Session