Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/20/08 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 20, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ACTION: Appointment of City Manager Assistant City Manager Scott Luell stated that this was the culmination of all of the work that had gone into the hiring process for the City Manager position. He said this motion presented the opportunity to authorize the council President to sign the final agreement with Jon Ruiz. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to authorize the council President to sign the final employment agreement with Jon Ruiz as presented to the Mayor and City Council and to appoint Jon Ruiz as the City Manager of Eugene. Several councilors indicated they had not received the final document and copies were provided. Ms. Bettman indicated she would oppose the motion. She reiterated her feeling that Mr. Ruiz was not the best choice for the community. She said the council should not “pretend” to have unanimity on a “hotly debated decision.” Ms. Ortiz noted that she originally had not supported the hiring of Mr. Ruiz. Upon a second review, she could find “no chink in [his] armor.” She now believed that of the choices offered Mr. Ruiz had risen to the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 1 Work Session top. She related that she had talked to members of the community panel, all of whom indicated Mr. Ruiz was the best of the applicants in the pool. She indicated she would vote in favor of the motion. Ms. Taylor opposed the motion. She also did not feel Mr. Ruiz was the best choice for the City. Mr. Zelenka supported the motion. He believed that Mr. Ruiz’ engaging style was what the City needed. He noted that Mr. Ruiz had been the most progressive choice and had won overwhelming support from both the citizen panel and the staff panel. He pointed out that Mr. Ruiz also had been the only candidate to answer his question on sustainability and that Mr. Ruiz had written the sustainability plan for Fresno, California. Additionally, Mr. Ruiz had worked with an independent auditor and had a sophisticated understanding of the importance of public trust. Mr. Clark expressed some surprise at Ms. Bettman’s staunch opposition. He recalled that he had conceded on the choice of consultant and that during the process he had wanted to move more slowly and deliberately. He remarked that for Ms. Bettman to be unhappy at this stage of the process when he had gotten the sense from her that she was interested in moving much more quickly was challenging for him “to hear.” Mr. Clark concurred with Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Zelenka. He had been struck by the recommendation made by the citizen panel, which had been a collaboration of people from all different sides of the political spectrum. He underscored that the panel had come together and declared that Mr. Ruiz was someone they could work with. He looked forward to working with Mr. Ruiz and believed it presented an opportunity to move “to the next level.” Mayor Piercy noted that the council had already decided to hire Mr. Ruiz. She said there had been two good candidates and one had prevailed. She was pleased with their choice and hoped that everyone would be supportive and welcoming. She had read all of the reports and background information and believed that the City could not have done any better. She underscored his ability to work collaboratively and with a diverse range of people. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the City Council at 12:15 p.m. and convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 3 Work Session B. ACTION: West Broadway Update Mr. Luell explained that this item was a follow-up to seek language for disposition of the options. City Attorney Glenn Klein said the attorney’s office had attempted to provide a methodology to comply with the motion passed which would allow tenants the right to purchase the option and, in the case no tenant was interested, that others could purchase it. He stated that it would include a provision that indicated there would be serious consequences if a building was demolished and construction on another building was not built within a “quick period” of time. He noted that Ms. Bettman had sent out an email containing questions and suggested that he respond to them for the benefit of the council. Mr. Klein said the first question was in regard to the City’s intent in terms of the cost to acquiring the options. He clarified that the intention was to cover the amount that the agency paid to secure the options, which in most cases was $5,000 to $10,000. He related that Ms. Bettman had asked what the terms ‘memo of offer’ and ‘purpose of development’ meant. He explained that the memo of offer served to provide a uniform format for bidders to use to submit something back to the City. He said the purpose of development sought to disallow someone to acquire property and “just sit on it.” He noted that there was also a provision that would allow the Agency Director to reject all of the bids, should this be the case. Mr. Klein addressed Ms. Bettman’s question regarding a scenario in which more than one tenant wished to bid on the property and one tenant then bid more to win the option. He suggested adding a provision that indicated that if only one tenant bid on the option the agency should charge the minimum amount. He underscored that the intent in providing the methodology was to meet the criterion of getting it done before the first option expired on March 15. Continuing, Mr. Klein related that the final question was in regard to the penalty provision. He stated that if the property was demolished the code would require that before any construction was undertaken all of the according permits would have to be obtained. He said it was trickier to find an objective standard to apply for potentially penalizing someone who purchased a building and then left it vacant. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman appreciated the response to her questions. She thought the public benefit language should be more general, e.g. that the bid would be given on the basis of criteria including the highest bid and the City Manager could then refuse a bid on any grounds. She wanted there to be enough discretion to move forward quickly and to also take into account the public benefit. Mr. Klein suggested one thing to consider would be to add something that said the bid would go to the highest bidder subject to a determination by the agency or the City Manager that the purchase of develop- ment was consistent with the provisions set forth in the West Broadway Development Advisory Committee report. Ms. Bettman felt the recommendations in the report had been so broad that she could “not imagine that anything would not fall under” them. She suggested that the language say “the agency” as opposed to “the Agency Director.” Mr. Klein said they could certainly provide that the proposal should include the amount of the bid and an explanation of what the proposer believed the public benefits to be. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the Agency Director to solicit offers from parties interested in an assignment of the purchase options not being exercised by the Urban Renewal Agency based on the methodology presented at this work session. Ms. Taylor moved to substitute a motion to direct the Agency Director to solicit offers from tenants interested in an assignment of a purchase option no being exercised by the Urban Renewal Agency based on the methodology below: ? Request for bids will be delivered to tenants of a building covered by an option. ? Minimum bid will be established at the total of the Urban Renewal Agency’s option money payment(s). ? Only tenants may submit bids. If multiple tenants of a building submit bids, then the tenant submitting the highest bid will be awarded the assignment. ? If no tenant submits a bid, then the option will expire. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 5 Work Session ? A “memo of offer” or form will be created by the Urban Renewal Agency to be used by bidders to submit their bids. The offer will include a bid amount and de- scription of the delivery of cash. ? Offers will be accepted up to a deadline, and the bids will be opened publicly. ? Agency Director will review the bids, and provide notice to highest bidder within a specific time period. Successful bidder will need to deliver cash and sign a “memo of intention: within a specific time period. ? Final decision will be made by the Agency Director based on highest bid. ? If a building is demolished, new construction must being within 6 months of demo- lition. ? If construction does not begin within 6 months, the owner will pay to the Urban Renewal Agency an amount equal to 5 percent of the purchase price for every 6 month period in which there is no new construction. Ms. Taylor thought only the current tenants of the buildings should be offered the options. She did not want people to be put out of their places of business. She said her intent was that the tenant would have the option until the option ran out and then the “free market” would take over. Ms. Bettman provided a second. Mr. Clark indicated he would oppose the substitute motion because he was interested in seeing the City get its money back. He wanted the City to be financially whole. He understood the desire to avoid putting existing businesses out, but was willing to let the market address it. Mr. Pryor observed that the principal difference between the methodology that was being proposed and Ms. Taylor’s substitute methodology lay in who could submit bids and what would happen if their bids were not awarded. He felt this was too prescriptive. He wanted the options to result in downtown development and did not oppose the tenants purchasing their buildings. He did not feel restricting the bids to only the current tenants would be in the City’s best interest. He did support giving the tenants the first right of refusal. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Ortiz asked if there were programs to help people purchase the buildings. Denny Braud, Senior Management Analyst for the Community Development Division, responded that there were two different programs that could be utilized. Mr. Poling wanted to see the City recoup the money spent on options. He asked if six months was a reasonable amount of time within which to expect development to occur. Mr. Braud replied that he thought it was. He noted that razing a building was part of construction, as it usually did not occur before construction was planned and permitted. Mr. Zelenka said he would oppose the substitute motion because he believed it was too restrictive. He expressed concern that if it was known that the tenant would have the first right of refusal it could preempt an interested party from wanting to take the time to put in a bid. He wondered if it would be possible to ask for a notice of intent from the tenants. Mr. Klein responded that legally it was possible but practically there might not be enough time to follow this procedure for the options slated to expire in March. Mayor Piercy noted the time and asked the council to consider deferring Item C, a work session on the Rental Housing Code Update. The council was amenable to deferring the item as it was not time sensitive. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Braud replied that the City had invested approximately $200,000 in options. Ms. Bettman ascertained that this was money that could be utilized to help the development to occur. She questioned why the deadline for the options was the same given that several options expired in March but the rest expired later in the year. She stated her intention to oppose the substitute motion. Ms. Taylor averred that it was more important to help the local businesses than it was to get the money back. The motion failed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in favor. Mr. Pryor asked whether bifurcating the options would affect what the City was attempting to do. Mr. Klein replied that it would not create legal problems, but it would create a different standard for different MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 7 Work Session options. Mr. Braud added that it was more efficient to do one process and it would also provide some certainty to property owners. He thought it might give the same advantages to everyone. Ms. Bettman thought the uncertainty would exist regardless. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the motion to keep the existing March timeline for the first options to expire, options 3, 7, and 11, and to provide a more generous timeline for the rest of the options. Mayor Piercy asked if there was a possibility that any of the first options to expire would be planned to be done in tandem with the second options and how having two deadlines would affect this. Mr. Braud did not foresee issues related to the implementation of two timelines. Mr. Zelenka supported the amendment. Ms. Ortiz asked if someone with money for the building they were in wanted to purchase a property with a later deadline would have to wait. Mr. Braud replied that the deadline would have to be the same for all bidders in the process. Mr. Poling asked if the remaining five properties would be done in a block. Mr. Braud affirmed that his recommendation would be to have a first process for the initial three and then a second process for the remainder. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to issue all of the options for bid but to place separate deadlines on the first three and the second five. The maker accepted the amend- ment. The amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Klein reviewed the changes, as follows: ? In the second bullet point, beginning with minimum bid, a sentence would be added that would say “agency also will consider public benefits identified by the bidder.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 8 Work Session ? In the third bullet point, the words ‘highest bid’ will be changed to ‘best bid as determined by the agency’ with the following sentence added at the end: The best bid includes the amount of the bid and the public benefits described; if only one tenant submits a bid then the amount of the payment shall be the minimum bid. ? The fourth bullet point will state the following: If no tenant submits a bid, then the non-tenant with the “best bid” will be awarded the assignment. ? The fifth bullet point: change ‘bids’ to ‘proposals’ and add ‘public benefits and the timing of the project’ to the second sentence. ? The sixth bullet point: change ‘bids’ to ‘proposals.’ ? Revise the seventh bullet point to state the following: The Agency Director will provide the bids or proposals to the agency for its review and selection. No change to the second sentence. ? Revise the eight bullet point to state the following: Final decision will be made by the Agency based on this predetermined methodology. The Agency retains the right to reject any and all offers. Mr. Pryor stated that he would accept all of the aforementioned changes as friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor reiterated her opposition to the motion as she did not support allowing non-tenants the opportunity to purchase the options before they expired. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 9 Work Session (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 10 Work Session