Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 12/10/07 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall December 10, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. As Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy had not yet arrived, Council President Andrea Ortiz called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND MANAGER Mr. Poling said he sent the council an e-mail regarding some recommendations to the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) Commissioners from the neighborhood association leadership and soliciting input. He had intended to place a motion on the table but had yet to hear from any other councilor and would postpone that action. He asked that a poll be sent to the council for a work session on the item. Mr. Poling anticipated the neighborhood association leadership would offer input on the recommendations at the later regular meeting. Mr. Poling extended his congratulations to the Sheldon High School football team, coaches, and parents for the team’s OSAA Division 6A championship win; to the Marist High School football team, coaches, and parents for the Class 4A championship win; and to the Marcola High School football team, coaches, and parents for that school’s IA championship. Mr. Poling reported that he took his family to Willamette Repertory Theater’s production of A Christmas Carol production at the Soreng Theater and it was a wonderful experience. He commended the quality of the local arts scene and recommended that all residents enjoy a production at the Hult Center. Ms. Taylor asked if the City could legally charge a tax on studded tires. City Manager pro tem Angel Jones said she would follow up. Mayor Piercy arrived. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the background material provided about the library reserve and said she would continue to research the issue. She said the staff response to her question about the facility reserve was not clear as to what departments contributed to the General Fund Reserve and she requested follow-up as to the percentage breakdown. Ms. Bettman asked why the Urban Renewal Agency (URA) was to be convened if the recommendation the council was offered was to use the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 108 money. City Manager pro MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 1 Work Session tem Jones indicated City Attorney Glenn Klein would respond to that later in the meeting. It was her understanding the URA must be convened. Mr. Clark congratulated the staff, coaches, and players of the successful football teams. Mr. Clark thanked Representative Chris Edwards for attending a recent Santa Clara neighborhood meeting with him. Mr. Zelenka said he attended a Lane Workforce Partnership meeting the previous week and noted his request to the council to sign a letter asking the Oregon Delegation to support the Work Force Reinvestment Act. He thanked the council for signing the letter, and shared statistics demonstrating the need for the agency and its success. Mr. Zelenka announced an upcoming job faire February 12 and March 13 at the Lane County Fairgrounds. Mr. Zelenka announced the Sustainability Commission had its first meeting and he commended the quality of its members. He said the next meeting was December 18 at 5:30 p.m. He noted that a company owned by Commissioner Josh Skov was recently profiled in The Register-Guard. Mr. Zelenka said the University of Oregon’s arena scoping process had begun in earnest and the university was working with the affected neighborhood groups. He planned to follow the process closely. Mr. Zelenka noted Police Auditor Cris Beamud’s recent talk before the City Club. Mr. Zelenka recognized outgoing County Administrator Bill Van Vactor for his many years of service. Mr. Pryor said that Lane County agreed to contribute $40,000 to the West Eugene Collaborative and Commissioner Peter Sorenson would join the group. Ms. Solomon arrived. ththth Mr. Pryor reported on his participation in a bus tour of EMX corridor options, which included 6, 7, 13, th and 11 avenues. He said the tour was very useful. He anticipated more work to come as there were pros and cons to each corridor. He encouraged councilors to contact Lane Transit District for similar tours. Ms. Ortiz also recognized Sheldon High School’s State championship and noted it occurred under Coach Marty Johnson, formerly of Willamette High School. Ms. Ortiz thanked Linda Dawson for the information she provided to her regarding condominium conver- sions and manufactured dwellings. Ms. Ortiz said she attended the Mayor’s Summit on Over-representation of Minority Youth in the Justice System in Portland recently and heard from a panel of youth who had been in the system and come out to be productive citizens. She had been unable to stay for the Governor’s remarks because she had attended a presentation by Enrique Morenos, founder of the Border Angels. She had been very impressed with his remarks and said a local email group to support him had been started. She offered to share more informa- tion with interested councilors. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Ortiz thanked Downtown Eugene, Inc., Director Russ Brink, for forwarding the DEI report to the council. Ms. Ortiz reported on a recent meeting she had with Jim Lockhart, Director of the River Road Park and Recreation District, who shared his concerns about the impact of annexation on the district. The district received $100,000 annually from Eugene but would be out of money in four years. She suggested that the City consider what its plans were for the district and service to that community. She thought the council needed a long-term plan. She said the district would like more money but she had not been able to promise Mr. Lockhart anything. Mayor Piercy thanked Ms. Ortiz for convening the meeting, saying she had been in Kingsborough to speak with Secretary of State Bill Bradbury and others on local responses to climate change and sustainability. Ms. Solomon reported on a meeting she attended with representatives of the State of Oregon Housing and Community Services put together by Stephanie Jennings of the Planning and Development Department. The State shared information about what it was doing and State representatives had been very interested in hearing about what local providers were doing and she appreciated the outreach and desire to strengthen relationships. On behalf of the Housing Policy Board, Ms. Solomon asked if the council would be represented on the Planning Commission subcommittees on infill standards and opportunity siting. Ms. Muir indicated the HPB was represented. Ms. Muir said no councilors were involved. Ms. Solomon asked if the council had been excluded from those groups. Ms. Muir indicated she would provide the council with more background on the topic. B. WORK SESSION: Tax Levy for Funding of Pavement Capital Preservation Projects Public Works Director Kurt Corey joined the council for the item. He recalled the council subcommittee process and the subcommittee’s resulting recommendations to the council. He said the work session was focused on the potential of a capital local option levy, which was a subcommittee recommendation. Sue Cutsogeorge of Financial Services provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Property Tax Option for Pavement Capital Preservation Funding. She reviewed the staff recommendation, which was for a general obligation (GO) bond measure to fund $81 million of pavement capital preservation projects over ten years, to be prepared for the November 2008 ballot. She invited questions. Ms. Ortiz asked about the time frame for a gas tax referral. Mr. Corey indicated two cents of the five cent local gas tax sunsetted in February; staff understood the council did not want the tax to sunset and staff had scheduled a public hearing on an ordinance that would extend the sunset or end it. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that opponents of the ordinance had 30 days to refer it, which would not allow it to be referred in time for the May 2008 ballot. Mr. Pryor was intrigued by the concept and pleased staff had come up with something outside the Measure 5 limits. He asked if staff recommended an inflation rate of five percent due to anticipated increases in construction costs at a rate higher than general inflation. Ms. Cutsogeorge indicated staff selected that rate MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 3 Work Session because it matched what staff projected as an increase in property values over the next few years and because it was close to the asphalt inflation range over the last few years. Mr. Pryor liked the idea of being able to specify projects that every resident could picture and evaluate. He asked what project development activities were involved and what impact those activities would have on the bond in regard to paving. Mr. Corey said people believed that as revenues came in repairs could be readily made, but because of the condition of the Eugene street network there was a value to be gained by upfront testing that allowed the City to identify streets for rehabilitation that staff previously thought must be reconstructed. Other project development costs were those engineering costs that went into prioritizing that work when it would do the most good. Other activities included coordination with utility providers and other stakeholders. Mr. Pryor asked what percentage of the bond that represented. Mr. Corey did not want to speculate, but thought the amount involved would be nominal. Mayor Piercy said she understood some projects benefited everyone but she questioned if there was some way to “spread it out” so that all residents felt as though they benefited. Mr. Corey said that was the way it worked out given the general disrepair across the network. Ms. Taylor liked the short-term GO bonds. She asked if references to flexibility regarded the projects themselves or how the money was used. Mr. Corey said in this context, it met not locking the City into a specific set of projects but to use the pavement management system to prioritize projects. Ms. Taylor asked if some cities used bond measures to pay for street reconstruction. Mr. Corey said yes. Ms. Taylor hoped the City considered that in the future as it was difficult for some residents to pay street assessments. Ms. Taylor asked why staff suggested the November 2008 ballot instead of May 2008. City Manager pro tem Jones attributed the recommendation to concern about the competition with other measures and the need for sufficient time to get educational information out to the public. She acknowledged that would postpone the receipt of any revenues for six months but she thought it worth the risk as it would result in a better campaign. Ms. Taylor was unsure if she agreed. Mr. Poling liked the idea of a high-priority project list. He asked if changes in priorities would require action on the council’s part. Mr. Corey said that implementation of the program would be generally done by staff with a report back to the council during the budget review process. Mr. Poling supported placing an item on the November ballot 2008 because of the double-majority issue and because it gave the council time to build public confidence. Mr. Poling asked what Eugene was spending on bicycle paths and path preservation. Mr. Corey indicated it was what the City could get through grants and other resources; there was no dedicated funding source. The local and State tax was constitutionally limited in that regard. Mr. Poling thought it important for the public to know that. Mr. Poling indicated he would support the motion prepared by staff as it merely started the process. He was not approving anything but additional work to be brought back to the council. Mr. Zelenka informed Mr. Poling that the council subcommittee recommended funding for bicycle paths because there was little or no money in the budget for bicycle path preservation and the City had an “amazing, nationally recognized” bicycle system plus the council had the goal of getting people out of their cars and onto bicycles. It made sense to have dedicated funding for that. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Zelenka also liked the short-term GO bonds. He said the interest for long-term bonds was very expensive in comparison. He also liked the project priority list and the concept of flexibility as long as the council was clear that all the money would be spent on roads and bicycle paths and nothing else. He agreed that a priority list could show citizens how the money would be spent and how it would be used in their part of the city. He thought every ward would benefit. He liked the November election date for the reasons mentioned by City Manager pro tem Jones. He acknowledged the expense would go up but the council would not need to get a double-majority to pass the measure. He said that May was too soon, and if the council was not prepared it should not go to the voters. Ms. Bettman was surprised that speakers had not supported a May 2008 election date. She asked how many May primaries had lacked a 50 percent voter turnout in the last few years. Ms. Cutsogeorge indicated staff had researched the two presidential primaries that happened since Measure 50 passed and the turnout had been well above 50 percent. Ms. Bettman did not think voter turnout was an issue. Ms. Bettman said that those who wanted to postpone the item were also saying their constituents found it a high priority. She observed that since the “Working City” video regarding the topic had been created it had been played over and over again, elevating the issue in the public’s awareness. People driving down West th 18 realized there was a problem. She said that if a GO bond measure failed in May the council would then have time for a Plan B, which would be difficult if the election occurred in November. She suggested the council might need to fix the problem using the Facilities Reserve. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about the amount of money involved and said she would need more information before she could support flexibility. She wanted the bond to be project-specific with a percentage built in for flexibility. She said the revenues must be dedicated strictly to preservation. In regard to capital preservation of the bicycle paths, she understood that was $300,000 yearly for off-street paths alone. Ms. Solomon also supported the staff recommendation for short-term GO bonds. She said she got somewhat frustrated when staff included project development costs. She said that the council had been discussing the issue for years and she was sure that the City must know what the pavement conditions were. She interpreted project development costs as administrative overhead and was seeking information on curb- to-curb work. Ms. Solomon indicated her concurrence with Ms. Bettman about the May 2008 election date. She did not think the voters needed any more education on the issue. She thought The Register-Guard had done some good articles on it and people drove on the roads every day. Ms. Solomon said that she would ask the Budget Committee to make a larger allocation from the General Fund to the problem to both address the problem and build City credibility. Mr. Clark said that he would also ask the Budget Committee to place some General Fund money toward the preservation and maintenance deficit. He was happy to see the staff recommendation come out and concurred with the staff recommendation for a November 2008 election. Mr. Clark also concurred with putting off the City hall issue. He supported a November election because he thought the council had some trust to build with voters, and the proposal before the council was only part of the package; the council needed a thorough plan the voters could support after the council rebuilt their trust by showing some dedication to their priorities. He did not think the council could get that work done by May 2008. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pryor agreed with other councilors in regard to the project list, flexibility, and the need to manage project costs. He asked if staff was aware what items would be on the ballot. Ms. Cutsogeorge indicated that School District 4J and Lane Community College were considering measures for the November 2008 ballot. That could change. Mr. Pryor said he reviewed data from Lane County Elections and found Eugene had done very well in achieving a 50 percent turnout. He was unsure that would be a problem. He was cognizant of the need to take time and process the issue although he wished to proceed more quickly. He suggested that one could have it fast, right, or cheap, pick any two; he could go either way, but if staff believed November was better he was reluctantly willing to wait that long. Ms. Bettman said she was not afraid to let the voters decide. She advocated for giving the public clear and specific information and ensuring that the council could deliver what it promised. She thought the council needed to know sooner than later what the public wanted. She said all the work had been done and the council knew what projects were “out there.” Ms. Bettman did not favor a November ballot measure that competed with important school funding measures. There were no other money measures on the May ballot. She would not support a November election date. She also wanted the council to see the ballot language before it reached the point it had to be challenged. Ms. Bettman said that many communities were moving toward concrete rather than asphalt because of the high costs of petroleum. When the subcommittee brought that up, staff did not want to take that approach. She asked for more information. Mr. Corey said the vast majority of the network was asphalt and replacing it with concrete was not cost-effective as it essentially constituted street reconstruction. He said that some cities had good cost experiences with concrete but he did not know if that would continue. In either case, a natural resource was involved, and cost and design life were also factors. To the extent the City was attempting to preserve asphalt streets, he thought it an apples and oranges mix. Ms. Bettman said that could be true in regard to the preservation of asphalt but the City could transition to concrete for new roads and reconstruction. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman’s remarks regarding a transition to concrete. She did not think public confidence would be boosted by a six-month delay. Mr. Zelenka said his concern about a May ballot was less related to the double majority issue than to how organized a support campaign could be. He noted that south Eugene had largely supported the gas tax while other wards had not. He asked how the council could get more “yes” votes in those wards so a measure passed, and what would be different this time. He suggested the more time the council had to build support, the more likely it was a measure would pass in wards that did not favor the gas tax. Mr. Pryor thought it possible to put a campaign together for a May 2008 election. He suggested that if the council decided on a May election, it would be the clear choice as the only measure. He thought such a measure would be more supported than a gas tax. Waiting for a November election meant the council could be in competition with the schools. He agreed that it was a short time line and challenged the council to get behind a measure. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 6 Work Session City Manager pro tem Jones spoke to the timing issue, saying that staff recommended a November election for the purpose of public education and because she would like to see the council take consensus action and not split the vote. She thought it would send a strong message if the council was unanimous, no matter the date selected. Mr. Clark concurred with City Manager pro tem Jones. He said the council’s ability to work together was important to his constituents. He said his constituents did not think the City spent its money well, and he thought the council needed to demonstrate it could spend money on items of high priority to the community, such as fixing the streets, before it sought more tax money. He received many e-mails, phone calls, and “comments on the street” that the council had enough money to fix those high-priority items first. He thought the upcoming budget process was an opportunity for the council to show it could do so, and then it could ask the voters for more assistance in November. Ms. Ortiz thought it important the council demonstrate it could work together as a group. She said her constituents wanted housing and family wage jobs from the council. She said her constituents work for $7 and $8 an hour and wanted to know what the City was going to do about those issues. Ms. Ortiz said that people do not like to ask for help; they wanted work. Ms. Solomon asked if Mr. Corey was aware of the Elmira-Maple reconstruction project. Mr. Corey said yes. Ms. Solomon said at this point it was being considered as a local improvement district (LID), and asked if it could be added to the project list. She could not ask the Elmira-Maple residents to vote for such a measure if they were going to pay a LID for their improvements and be asked to contribute more. Mr. Corey suggested that was a separate policy issue from the backlog of maintenance. There was also a large backlog of unimproved streets and the City had yet to discuss underwriting the costs of what would normally be assessed to property owners. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring a proposal to a future council work session for a GO bond measure to fund $81 million of pavement capi- tal preservation projects over 10 years within an appropriate timeframe to place the ques- tion on the May 2008 ballot. The proposal should include ballot measure language that provides for both a list of high-priority pavement capital preservation projects and appro- priate flexibility for planning activities and changing pavement capital preservation project priorities. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to substitute the May 2008 election date with the November 2008 election date. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark voting yes. Ms. Bettman supported the motion but wanted to make it clear to staff that the ballot language should state the new revenue from such a bond would not displace any revenue now dedicated to maintenance and preservation, the measure was project-specific, and people would clearly understand the percentages incorporated into the flexibility element. Ms. Ortiz accepted that as a friendly amendment, which staff would incorporate into a future motion. Mr. Zelenka asked when a gas tax sunset repeal vote would occur if the petroleum owners were successful in their referral. Mr. Corey said that would occur in September 2008. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Poling and Mr. Clark voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 7 Work Session C. WORK SESSION: West Broadway Project City Manager pro tem Jones called the council’s attention to the motion postponed from the November 27, 2007, meeting. I move to direct the City Manager/Agency Director to bring back to the council/Urban Renewal Agency (URA) for consideration at the December 10, 2007, work session a proposal(s) that is consistent with provisions of Option 2 offered by staff/Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) at the April 25, 2007, council work session as follows; Option 2 engaged Beam to pro- ceed with “renovation of the Centre Court building and the Washburn building and a yet-to-be- defined level of new construction on on the adjacent vacant land.” (The adjacent vacant land be- ing the Aster Pit.) And, includes that the council/URA “would also continue to move forward with th the TK Partners project as previously selected on the 10 and Charnelton request for proposals process.” (Consisting of 106 “homes” on the Sears Pit site.) This motion assumes a proposal(s) coming back to the council will define the use and intensity for the Aster Pit development; and maintain Beam and Kemper as separate entities. Mayor Piercy called the meeting of the URA to order. Ms. Bettman asked why a meeting of the URA was needed given that the work session was not about a URA financing issue. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that the URA held the options on the property, requiring the council to act as the agency at some point. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Denny Braud of the Planning and Development Department, clarified that the model included in the packet was not the only financial structure, just a model to demonstrate how the moneys could be used to impact the Beam project. Mr. Zelenka asked who determined how the Community Development Block Grant money was spent. City Attorney Klein said when the council decided what it wanted to do, staff would return with the actions necessary for either the URA or the council to take. Ms. Bettman offered the following modification to the motion on the table: Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to modify the motion on the table to direct the City Manager to pursue a development agreement for the Beam development project as selected in the West Broadway Request for Qualifications to renovate the Centre Court Building and the Washburn Building and with a defined development proposal for the adja- cent Aster Pit. The City will proceed with acquisition or assignment of the options on all three of the aforementioned properties and within the financial constraints of the current $33 million urban renewal district spending limit. Also, return with a draft development agreement, including the City’s financial participation, acquisition, and/or transfer of prop- erty, mix of uses, density, design, and timeline for projects no later than February 11, 2008, and also proceed with acquisition of the Diamond property and return to the council with th draft Request for Proposal options for the 10 and Charnelton site also within the existing financial constraints of the urban renewal district spending limit. Ms. Solomon noted that Beam had sent a letter to the City received earlier that day that indicated a need for more than 90 days’ time. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Solomon asked that the motion be considered as two separate motions. Ms. Bettman had no objection, and she and Ms. Taylor accepted that as a friendly amendment to the motion. Ms. Bettman said that staff received notice from Beam it needed more time to secure tenants, and staff only received that letter that afternoon. That issue was beyond staff’s control. She believed the time frame was largely dependent on the developer. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Manager pro tem Jones indicated the developer wanted 90 days from the time the options expired. Ms. Bettman suggested that could be negotiated within the parameters of the motion. City Manager pro tem Jones pointed out the City could not meet the time frame for the development agreement because Beam would be unable to respond by that date. Mr. Braud said that would give the City only 45 days to negotiate an agreement, which was very difficult. Mr. Poling recalled that the council had discussed the properties north of Broadway because of their location at a major intersection. He asked staff to prepare text to include consideration of the acquisition of the properties identified as Roberts, Taco Time, and the Scan Design. City Attorney Klein indicated that at this point, the Beam-related part of the motion was on the table, and he suggested that Mr. Poling offer a motion after the two motions had been dealt with. Mr. Clark said approval of the motion meant Eugene would buy the buildings without knowing if it had a developer in place. City Manager pro tem Jones suggested that the City could negotiate option extensions rather than purchase the properties. She confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, that the City was negotiating with the only property owner on the Beam project. Mr. Zelenka said he had supported the ballot measure because it included a lot of housing and development patterns that would have transformed the downtown area. Now he did not think the City would see housing downtown for many years and the downtown area would probably look the same in five years as it does today. The City would be unlikely to see any private investment in that area in the near-term or housing that it did not subsidize. Now the City was talking about heavily subsidizing a single office building with one tenant. He questioned whether that was in the public’s interest but he suspected his ward, which supported the more comprehensive ballot measure, would support the lesser project as well. He thought the project was “pretty speculative” but had confidence in Beam because of the company’s past projects. Mr. Zelenka favored moving forward with the Beam project but it appeared the company needed more time. City Attorney Klein said that under the option agreements, the City must give notice of its intent to acquire a property by March 24; it then had one month to do due diligence and within 90 days the City would close on the properties or it would not. He said that would also require a supplemental budget allocation. Mr. Zelenka thought that problematic in terms of timing. Mr. Zelenka said he had also considered putting forth the acquisition of the Diamond lot because he thought its absence made the development of the other property on the block problematic. It did not seem too expensive a purchase to pursue. Ms. Taylor clarified the details of the letter the City received from Beam. Speaking to Mr. Zelenka’s concerns about the development of a single-occupant office building, Ms. Taylor said that Oregon Research Institute (ORI), the company in question, had clients that arrived throughout the MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 9 Work Session day and evening. She wanted to proceed with redevelopment of the Washburne Building as soon as possible. Ms. Bettman, with the consent of her second, changed the motion to direct staff to return with the draft development agreement as soon as practicable. Ms. Bettman said the City should acquire the properties in question, for which it had options. She questioned the business model used to manage the properties, which degraded the properties and their ability to be used. She did not think the City would lose by taking the properties out of their current ownership and the prices being asked are consistent with the appraisals. She noted her interest in acquiring the Shaw Med/Diva buildings as well. Ms. Bettman commiserated with staff on the failure of the recent ballot measure but hoped that it could still work to pursue the project with all its expertise, and suggested if it could muster some enthusiasm, “that would be nice too.” She asked staff to try to put a deal together “for the sake of the community.” Ms. Bettman said she did not want to inventory the long list of mismanaged City initiatives, including ORI on the Sears Pit Site. She recalled that the council had strongly supported closing the funding gap in the financing for the ORI building, but ORI dropped out because it could not close the funding gap, even though the council gave staff explicit direction to do so. She hoped that everyone was working in good faith on the project. Mr. Clark had great confidence in the integrity of staff and thanked it for its hard work. He was willing to support the motion because it appeared the council had some options. Although the opportunity available was smaller than the council majority hoped for, he believed “incremental was good” and if the City addressed public safety and made some minor code adjustments, he believed it could attract investment downtown with an incremental approach. Ms. Solomon commended staff and its expertise. In regard to ORI, she said she had not voted to close the funding gap for ORI. She agreed that the council was at a disadvantage coming back to the table in March 2008 and she did not want to give the building owners more leverage. She asked if there was an advantage to letting the options expire and allowing Beam to pursue them instead. City Manager pro tem Jones said that Beam recognized the need for some subsidy from the City; the amount was undetermined, and the options were one possibility. If the City wanted to ensure that something happened downtown, it would have to work with Beam to make it happen. Ms. Solomon agreed that the City needed to provide a lift but suggested it could happen at other intervals through the project. City Manager pro tem Jones indicated the staff asked Beam if it could pursue options on the Washburne Building and the response was reflected in the letter. She said the Centre Court Building and Aster Pit were not the developer’s highest priority. Mr. Pryor supported the motion and any incremental action the council could take. He said the question of the options was a wide open one for discussion at another time. Mayor Piercy was pleased that Beam continued to believe there was value in its continued partnership with the City. Ms. Bettman briefly reviewed the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with acquisition of the Diamond property and return to the council with draft Request for Pro- th posal (RFP) options for 10 and Charnelton that are within the financial constraints of the urban renewal district’s $33 million spending limit, with adequate time for exercising op- tions. City Attorney Klein said the Diamond option was both cashed and an exchange of property; he asked if the motion was specific to the value of the land. Ms. Bettman said yes. She did not want to see a proposal that increased the spending limit of the district. She added that there might be other financial resources outside the district the council employed. Mr. Poling moved to amend the motion to include the Roberts’ Taco Time property and Scan Design property. The motion failed for lack of a second. Speaking to Mr. Poling’s motion, Mr. Clark wanted more discussion of those properties and suggested there was adequate time to do so. He also recalled discussion in advance of the ballot measure about keeping the businesses downtown whole through the process, and he thought the motion could have a significant impact on Bradford’s by eliminating its parking. He welcomed suggestions. Ms. Solomon also was concerned about the impact of the motion on Bradford’s. She wanted to send out another RFP but if the council approved the motion it had more than two-thirds of the block and it seemed to her the council could go smaller or larger. She thought it the “wrong chunk of the block” to send out for an RFP. Mr. Zelenka suggested the next discussion was whether to buy the Shaw Med/Diva or Roberts building; the City did not have enough money to do both. He believed that the council should discuss whether it should focus on the intersection or control of the whole block, which he found an interesting tradeoff. Alternatively, the council could do nothing and use the money to assist Beam. Ms. Bettman reminded the council of the overwhelming defeat of the ballot measure, saying people did not want to go bigger; they wanted incremental and affordable and they wanted the two pits filled. The council attempted to use those pits as leverage to get the public to spend money, and now the council was left with the pits. The Sears Pit was there because the city manager tore the building down, and she thought the City needed to fix it. It was long overdue. The City had a small proposal for housing on the site and she thought it should continue on that track. She said if the ballot measure had passed it was likely the retail would have gotten built first, followed possibly by the housing but only if the developers deemed it favorable for the market, and it was likely that the developers would have sought code amendments to build surface parking. Ms. Bettman said she would entertain as a friendly amendment to the motion that the RFPs contain specific strategies for preserving Bradford’s as she agreed with those speaking in its support. Ms. Taylor had no objection. Ms. Ortiz expressed appreciation for all the work done by staff on the project and for its due diligence. She did not think staff woke in the morning and thought about how to spend money needlessly. She supported the motion and said she would also support the addition of the Scan Design and Shaw Med/Diva properties. Ms. Ortiz said the City could not do it all so it should do it incrementally. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Clark said while he wanted to support the motion, the options for the property in question did not expire until August and he asked Ms. Bettman why the council should act before it had a specific proposal. Ms. Bettman said the City did not have to buy the site now. City Manager pro tem Jones clarified that the option that was expiring was the Scan Design option; staff could return to the council with more information about the other options at an upcoming work session. Mr. Pryor concurred with City Manager pro tem Jones. He said the Diamond lot was not expensive and while the option did not expire soon he did not see a reason to postpone a decision given the cost. He agreed a decision was needed soon on Scan Design. Mr. Zelenka complemented staff on the work it did in regard to the agenda item. He said the Scan Design option was probably the most valuable option and the one with the potential for the most increase in cost but it seemed rushed to make a decision now. Mr. Zelenka said he had identified 15 reasons people opposed the measure, and he thought it was because they were confused, did not care much about downtown, opposed developer subsidies, and thought the project was too big for too much money. He did not think the voters necessarily cared about incremental development. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to extend the option for the Scan Design building. Ms. Bettman asked why the City should acquire the Scan Design property given that there was an existing business occupying it and there was discussion it was going to turn over, which she understood given the uncertainty surrounding the property. She said that nobody had yet made a good case for the acquisition. She hoped that the council could talk about the Shaw Med/Diva building on December 19 so it could discuss turning the building over to the tenants. She did not know why the price would not go down since the urban renewal project was no longer on the table. City Manager pro tem Jones stated that she had the authority to renew the options if possible without additional funding. She said that she would do that within the resources the City had. Mr. Poling withdrew the motion. The meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 12 Work Session