Laserfiche WebLink
In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Malsin said he would consider moving forward with the Beam <br />proposal alone. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked how soon they would let the City know of their intentions. Pete Eggspuehler, also represent- <br />ing Beam Development, responded that the original proposal was a more phased project. He said they were <br />talking with potential tenants in order to get a better sense of their intentions. He underscored that having a <br />tenant prior to redevelopment reduced risk. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said it was important to know where the developers wanted to move with the original proposals so <br />that the City would know how to proceed. She remarked that the City had the ability to make investments in <br />housing. She asserted that there was a set amount of money in terms of the HUD money, the Brownfield <br />Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant, what was left under the urban renewal district cap, and there <br />were “other monies as well.” She stated that there were state HOME funds, Multiple Unit Property Tax <br />Exemption (MUPTE) incentives, and low income housing credits for affordable housing. She hoped that City <br />staff could talk to the developers about what options for financing were available. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Malsin if the Beam project would go forward with the Centre Court building if the <br />Washburne building was not included in the project. Mr. Malsin responded that he would have to consider this <br />at greater length given that at present it appeared that the tenants he was working with would require both <br />buildings. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy remarked that she had heard in an earlier meeting that housing was in better shape in the <br />northwest than in other areas of the country. Mr. Kemper replied that he thought it was an accurate assessment. <br />He explained that the decline in prices had created difficulty for lenders but prices had not fallen significantly in <br />the northwest. He said the other variable was the number of sales, which at this point were “way off.” <br /> <br />Mr. Malsin concurred with Mr. Kemper. He said there were trends in development and big developers tended to <br />look at trends rather than markets. He underscored that developers’ investments were long term investments. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark observed that much of the conversation revolved around what the development would cost and what it <br />would consist of. He acknowledged that developers would also look at who would move into the building and <br />what the revenue stream would be. He asked for feedback regarding the differences between the larger project <br />from before and what could be built at present. <br /> <br />Mr. Kemper said KWG had proposed a mixed use concept with housing and retail, with the retail at a <br />significant scale. He explained that the sort of retail they were looking for would want to know who the <br />“players” would be in their neighborhood. He underscored that the scale of the project had been critical to its <br />success. He added that the housing they had considered consisted predominantly of condominiums. He <br />reiterated that at present getting financing for condos was “extraordinarily difficult.” <br /> <br />Mr. Malsin said the Beam concept had been to restore buildings and to house smaller locally-owned businesses <br />in them. He stressed that in the “real world” there had to be a lot of different uses in the downtown area. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked staff to talk about tools such as conduit loans that could be utilized for financing. She <br />averred that the City could bypass “a reluctant banking industry.” <br /> <br />Ms. Cutsogeorge stated that non-profit housing projects had the ability to access tax increment financing <br />through conduit loans. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene Urban Renewal Agency November 27, 2007 Page 5 <br /> Workshop <br /> <br />