My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-12-16
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2016
>
12-12-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2017 10:35:19 AM
Creation date
1/11/2017 4:00:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING December 12, 2016 <br />ones that revitalize this TIF and really put dollars in the pocket to do even more in the future that <br />hopefully comes before you. <br />Councilmember Ferlic announced that the Council portion for questions was closed. At this <br />point, each Councilmember in a line would offer one (1) final comment. No Councilmember <br />would be revisited. Only after each Councilmember had given their comment would the Council <br />entertain any motions. <br />Councilmember Scott asked everyone to respect each person who has the floor. <br />Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston stated that with projects brought to the Council there <br />are so many loose ends. This begs for the due diligence of Council and the search for options that <br />could satisfy a given project and policy. These issues of process mean that if the Council says no <br />to a developer that they may not seem friendly to development in general. She stated that it felt <br />like it was up to Council to make sure that things were done in line with the law. She stated that <br />petitioners should be held accountable for making sure that they are doing what they need to do, <br />so that these questions don't end up in Council's lap. Councilmember Williams- Preston stated <br />that she had issues with this moving forward as a PUD and was hoping for a different way to <br />proceed. She stated that the Council Attorney had warned that this would put Council in danger <br />of liability; that the decision could be viewed as arbitrary and capricious. She stated that there <br />were really great ideas brought forth at the last minute, and that that was not the way to make big <br />decisions. She found the proposal hard to support as is. <br />Councilmember Randy Kelly stated that this was supposed to be in Council's lap, that it was <br />time to make a decision. He did not feel that information was presented to the Council at the <br />eleventh (1 Ith) hour. He stated that consultants were brought in to present options, but none of <br />them were viable because the City does not have $12,600,000 in TIF to build the garage. Many <br />have said that the project would be better on the other side of the river — Councilmember Kelly <br />stated that that was not a good enough reason to turn down a $50,000,000 project. He stated that <br />Mr. Matthews did a good job of making the project feasible. He stated that the 2008 East Bank <br />Plan opened with the recognition of the fact that there had been no development in the area up to <br />that point, and that was the reason for the plan in the first place. He stated that that means that <br />there have been nearly two (2) decades of little development in the East Bank. Here is a chance, <br />he stated, to let in a $50,000,000 development. There needs to be a first twelve (12) story <br />building. He thought that a bridge between the east and the west of the river would be good. <br />Councilmember Jo Broden stated that the unique flavor of the East Bank will fall with this <br />project because of the choice to go up rather than out; that it would negate the community- <br />building effort of the creation of the East Bank Plan. She argued that a distinction between the <br />east of the river and the west of the river was a good thing. She stated that the project's height <br />was egregious and that it would be a game- changer for the rest of the district. She argued that <br />though it provides for long- desired needs, there should not be this level of separation between the <br />vision that has been expressed through the East Bank Plan and the proposed project's features. <br />She felt that it was problematic that she received a message from Mr. Matthews on the evening <br />of Sunday, December 11, 2016 and received another on the Council table, yet the public was not <br />privy to these messages in advance. She stated that there has been no compromise on height until <br />twelve (12) hours prior to the current Council meeting. She stated, We can hit density or tax <br />dollar targets, but how do we get there —up or out? She argued that the nature of the <br />neighborhood suggested that building out was the solution. If the future of the neighborhood is to <br />be redirected, she stated, it should be in a collective way instead of by way of development plans. <br />She stated, We can do better. The plan should still be around after this decision, she concluded. <br />Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated that the Council once passed on University Park Mall <br />because it did not seem to fit the plan, and that did not work out for the City. The Hall of Fame <br />was built, and yet did not really work out for the City, either. He stated that the City has been <br />crying for people to bring in private money and development so that the City does not have to <br />use TIF or raise taxes so that the City does not spend on plans. He asked, What do you do with a <br />plan that is ten (10) years old with one (1) building to show for it in that district? He stated that a <br />plan can be well- intentioned and unviable at the same time. He argued that some discretion <br />should be left to the developers to determine if they can make a project profitable. He stated, I <br />24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.