05/25/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e ments by taking applications from the public and interested agencies. Ms. Bohman said a staff advisory team would work with the task force in order to cover the functional areas of development, block grants, historic preserva- tion, social services, building and permits, financial analysis, planning, recreation, and maintenance. This would involve the departments of Develop- ment, Planning, and PARCS, as well as a participant from the Lane County Department of Health and Human Services. In addition to this staffing, there would be private, contractual technical assistance. Ms. Bohman said the task force would provide input into the Request for Qualifications and the development and management plans for the ongoing operation of the project. Ms. Bohman pointed out the work program in the staff notes. The time line established for the work program is spread out over five to six months. Ms. Bohman said this is a heavy schedule that calls for the task force to meet once a week. She said the task force process could run two to four months over that time period. Ms. Bohman briefly discussed the staff resources that would be required for the task force process and overseeing the rehabilitation project itself. Ms. Bohman discussed the differences between a Request for Proposals and Request for Qualifications, noting that an RFP is generally a more detailed type of proposal speliing out the project clearly and eliciting a well-devel- oped proposal in return. An RFQ generally deals with the qualifications of a developer to do a project, including a conceptual approach. Staff recommend- ed that a Request for Qualifications be used in this case. Ms. Bohman brief- ly discussed the process used by Seattle in its school conversion projects, which used a Request for Proposal format. - Ms. Ehrman supported the task force proposal. She said the work program was too ambitious and expressed concern that this issue is taking priority over other mall issues. She said some of the issues downtown must be addressed, and did not wish to put this project over those priorities. Mr. Bennett said he was on the minority side of the three-person subcommittee formed to address the Lincoln School project. He said the main focus of the effort was to save the building and prepare it for development at the least possible cost. A joint public-private venture had been envisioned for this large building. The rehabilitation of such large, historic buildings can be very difficult. With this in mind, Mr. Bennett felt that the City needed to attract private development and investment to the project. The proposal before the council, which Mr. Bennett characterized as a very general propos- al, is not realistic. He said the City does not have the resources to devel- op the entire building. Mayor Obie said he did not see how the City could justify the staff work dollars needed in a time when the budget was very limited. Ms. Schue said she felt the problem was that the council has not decided what to do with the property in a realistic way. The proposals made to the coun- cil are wonderful, but Ms. Schue said the council has not decided if it has the resources to do all these things. She asked if the council members had e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 1988 Page 9