04/25/1988 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e recommended against that because of the possibility of misleading and confusing information. She said the task force process was estimated to take about four months, in addition to time for formation and closure; an RFP/Q could be accomplished in 60 to 90 days, in addition to some time for developing a proposal. Ms. Bohman said the Community Development Division had been staffing the committee and believed that staffing a task force process would put a strain on the staff load, perhaps delaying other projects or lengthening the task force process. Another option that might be considered was hiring a consultant to staff the task force, she added. Ms. Bohman showed slides and distributed copies of information about rehabilitation projects in Oakland, Oregon, and at Multnomah School in Portland. Ms. Wooten, a member of the subcommittee, encouraged support for the recommendations. She said she believed the council had an obligation to exercise its hope and will, that after a needs analysis and development of priority uses for the building could be done by a community task force, a funding package would be developed that would allow implementation of the plan. If the optimum choice could not be funded, she said the fallback position remained to pursue the other option of issuing an RFP/Q for private development with some public uses according to neighborhood and community needs. Mr. Bennett, also a member of the subcommittee, said he represented the minority and had served because he felt very strongly that the building itself, regardless of a potential use, needed a place in the community. He said the building was part of the history and integrity of the community and he thought it was sound structurally and worth saving. Mr. Bennett said he favored a different direction, however, and given the budget situation, he would like to make the building as safe and attractive as possible while allowing time for development of possible funding sources and other important public contributions. He said he thought the best chance for successful comprehensive development of the building was as a public/private venture. He said attraction of private investment was important for sharing risks, both capital and operating, and for providing the best chance that a portion of the building would remain in community use at the lowest possible cost. He expressed concern that grants and funding sources were few and said he thought it was in the best interests of the community to try to identify funding sources and realistic approaches before forming a task force to look at uses. Mr. Bennett said he thought the best approach was the RFP/Q process, in which costs were identified as $2 million to $2.5 million. Using that estimate, he said monthly loan payments would be about $17,500, and monthly operating costs could be $16,000, for monthly rent of about $.70 per square foot, which was difficult for community users to pay. He also said rehabilitations were expensive and difficult to do well. He said he was concerned with other important social, capital, and operating issues, about entering the project with a positive attitude and without funding sources. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1988 Page 7