Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Poling agreed with the remarks of Ms. Solomon and Mr. Papé. He said the proposal represented a <br />window of opportunity for the council to address some long-established, but unaccomplished, City visions <br />and goals for downtown. He agreed with Mr. Pryor about the financing package. The project would cost <br />the City something but it would have a benefit. He said the proposal was not just about an individual <br />development but about what the City had envisioned for that part of town for many years. <br /> <br />Regarding the potential of County and federal involvement in the parking structure, Mr. Poling pointed out <br />that many people would use the facility, not just those going to the County or federal offices. He would not <br />blame the County for not being receptive to the City’s overtures for funding given the council’s recent <br />interactions with the Board of County Commissioners. He thought some bad choices had been made with <br />regard to how the City dealt with the County, and opportunities to work together had been lost. He said if <br />there was anything he could do to “extend a hand across the bridge” or work with the federal government, he <br />would do it. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling also agreed the demand for parking had been proven and he consistently heard complaints about <br />a lack of parking in downtown. He thought the project worthwhile and pointed out the motion merely started <br />a process that would require final council approval. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Kelly it was likely another work session would be needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he supported the project and expected to support the City’s participation if City policies were <br />satisfied and its interests were met. He did not think the proposal inconsistent with the concept of the City <br />helping small businesses, and invited proposals from local small businesses either individually or in <br />consortia. He noted that he had to leave the meeting at the scheduled ending time and asked that action be <br />postponed if he had to leave. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly referred to the proposed land transaction and requested a written answer to the question of <br />whether, when the exchange was done, the City would own part of the northern half block. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, City Manager Taylor indicated it would be useful if the <br />council could take action that day, given that the motion merely started the process. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the motion until February 22, 2006. <br />The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Pryor <br />voting no; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Papé, and Ms. Bettman voting yes; Mayor Piercy <br />cast a vote in opposition and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy stated that the motion was still on the table and given that the meeting was approaching its <br />scheduled ending time, she asked for a motion to extend the meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend time for the item by five minutes. <br />The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Papé and Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she could have supported the motion in the PowerPoint presentation (direct the City <br />Manager to negotiate a land transaction and to bring back final terms for council approval). She indicated <br />her support for the equitable exchange of land between the City and The Shedd and would be happy to <br />proceed with that. However, the motion implied it was a facilitative move to participating in the Whole <br />Foods development, and it was her opinion that the council “hadn’t gotten there yet.” <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2006 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />