CC Minutes - 11/27/07 URA Workshop

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman was also not in favor of using General Fund money. She favored using the Facility Reserve fund as security on Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) loan money. She averred that it was available for redevelopment and should be used for that. She said it should not be “wasted in three or four different ways.” In terms of acquisition of property, she was not interested in acquiring properties that lay north of Broadway. She felt that her motion should have been left on the table because she believed there needed to be some decision in place in order to know what next steps to take. Ms. Bettman noted that options laid out by staff included increasing the urban renewal district spending limit by a smaller amount. She underscored her opposition to doing so. She said she had “done some numbers” and would share them with anyone who was interested. She explained that she was thinking in terms of what she thought was available from existing funds. She averred that the City had to do what it could afford. She added that housing should still be a top priority for the downtown area. She also agreed that the property across from the library should not be redeveloped solely for a park. Mayor Piercy commented that both the people who supported and opposed the ballot measure supported reinvigoration of the downtown area. She pointed out that the closer people lived to the downtown area the more likely they were to support the ballot measure. Mayor Piercy did not think the City of Eugene had “saturated” its interest in condominiums in the downtown area. She believed there was housing potential in the area that might not be true in other areas. She also thought the park idea had been couched in the context of housing and was not something that would stand by itself. Ms. Bettman wanted to hear more from the developers about what they wanted to do next. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Financial Analysis Manager for the Central Services Department, Sue Cutsogeorge, affirmed that a special levy was considered tax increment financing and would count as part of the spending limit for the district. Mr. Malsin commented that one challenge was not just to look at how they perceived the housing market but how housing would be financed. He explained that at present, financial institutions were hesitant to finance condominium projects. Regarding the Washburne/Centre Court/Aster pit project, he said Beam Development was still interested and believed they could make it work. He wanted to see what KWG Development would be doing because he thought there could be synergy between the two. He believed there was some formulation that existed in downtown courts that involved a critical mass of activity that would make things viable. He believed it would take more cooperation from the City financially and otherwise to be able to take smaller steps as this approach would present challenges. Ms. Solomon observed that some of the options would expire on March 24, 2008. She asked if it would be reasonable to expect a commitment from the developers at this time. Mr. Kemper called this an appropriate question. He underscored that when the project was actually initiated the developer would spend between $500,000 and $700,000 in predevelopment costs out of pocket. He said it represented a bet that at the end of the process they would be able to secure a construction loan to build the 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. MINUTES—Eugene Urban Renewal Agency November 27, 2007 Page 4 Workshop