Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

project. He stated that if they asked him at the present meeting if he was willing to “step up” and spend the money on purchase contracts the answer would be no. He added that they would continue to take the Sears site under serious consideration. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Malsin said he would consider moving forward with the Beam proposal alone. Ms. Taylor asked how soon they would let the City know of their intentions. Pete Eggspuehler, also represent- ing Beam Development, responded that the original proposal was a more phased project. He said they were talking with potential tenants in order to get a better sense of their intentions. He underscored that having a tenant prior to redevelopment reduced risk. Ms. Bettman said it was important to know where the developers wanted to move with the original proposals so that the City would know how to proceed. She remarked that the City had the ability to make investments in housing. She asserted that there was a set amount of money in terms of the HUD money, the Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant, what was left under the urban renewal district cap, and there were “other monies as well.” She stated that there were state HOME funds, Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) incentives, and low income housing credits for affordable housing. She hoped that City staff could talk to the developers about what options for financing were available. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Malsin if the Beam project would go forward with the Centre Court building if the Washburne building was not included in the project. Mr. Malsin responded that he would have to consider this at greater length given that at present it appeared that the tenants he was working with would require both buildings. Mayor Piercy remarked that she had heard in an earlier meeting that housing was in better shape in the northwest than in other areas of the country. Mr. Kemper replied that he thought it was an accurate assessment. He explained that the decline in prices had created difficulty for lenders but prices had not fallen significantly in the northwest. He said the other variable was the number of sales, which at this point were “way off.” Mr. Malsin concurred with Mr. Kemper. He said there were trends in development and big developers tended to look at trends rather than markets. He underscored that developers’ investments were long term investments. Mr. Clark observed that much of the conversation revolved around what the development would cost and what it would consist of. He acknowledged that developers would also look at who would move into the building and what the revenue stream would be. He asked for feedback regarding the differences between the larger project from before and what could be built at present. Mr. Kemper said KWG had proposed a mixed use concept with housing and retail, with the retail at a significant scale. He explained that the sort of retail they were looking for would want to know who the “players” would be in their neighborhood. He underscored that the scale of the project had been critical to its success. He added that the housing they had considered consisted predominantly of condominiums. He reiterated that at present getting financing for condos was “extraordinarily difficult.” Mr. Malsin said the Beam concept had been to restore buildings and to house smaller locally-owned businesses in them. He stressed that in the “real world” there had to be a lot of different uses in the downtown area. Ms. Bettman asked staff to talk about tools such as conduit loans that could be utilized for financing. She averred that the City could bypass “a reluctant banking industry.” MINUTES—Eugene Urban Renewal Agency November 27, 2007 Page 5 Workshop