12/08/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

action had been taken by the Joint Housing Committee, and he wondered, too, why the Committee switched to housing for the elderly, deciding on the Palace Hotel before receiving competitive proposals. "' Mr. Boehnke wondered also why rental income from the Palace would not pay for e improvements of the roof and building. And further, "how do you justify giving $60,000 to the Palace Hotel plus $40,000 rtr)re to restore?" He questioned the cost of bringing the building up to the 1975 fire code standards and also wondered about any conflict that might be created with expansion of the jail facility in the same block. He also understands that rtr)st units in the hotel do not have private bath facilities (mentioning Springtree which rents from 105-110 and which has complete facilities). And he finally wondered if a continuing effort of housing and historic preservation such as this one would not best be handled by private enterprise. Mrs. Cushman explained briefly that positive action had been taken on the Home Build~rs request, and that it applied to a completely different chunk of money, land bank money, which was set aside a year ago, and which is a separate issue. Mr. Bernhard understands the previous Palace Hotel owners have done $38,000 or so in i~provements. There will be $40,000 plugged in to fire sprinklers, sanitary upgrades, kitchen facilities, etc. Too, the purchase price was to be $160,759 and not $180,000 as reported by Mr. Boehnke. Mr. Williams noted a conflict of interest in voting on the matter. . Vote was taken on the motion which carried, all council members present voting aye except Mr. Williams abstaining. Bob Suess, 260 East 38th Avenue, said he had heard that $40,000 in development funds e were also to be used in the purchase of this building, and he wondered whether they should be in hand before a decision was made on the purchase in view of the need for remodeling of the structure to meet code provisions. His major concerns were: (1) Their was no invitation for like proposals from other groups for purchase of the building; (2) there was no independent appraisal; (3) proposed use should not be undertaken unless proper improvement were made; (4) if purchase if for the purpose of saving a historic structure, it should not be done under the guise of housing; (5) should Sorgenfri, the nonprofit organization proposing to purchase the building, fail to perform, what would the city's position be as a participant. Mr. Suess continued that there had been no notice to the public of any change in city policy with regard to calling for open bids on housing proposals. He noted the prop- erty was listed on the tax rolls at $65,470. He cited the various financial arrange- ments and improvements started under the present ownership and quoted the selling price now at 130%' of the purchase price in 1974, wondering if this would set precedent for the city. He noted the number of improvements that would be necessary before the building could be used for housing purposes. And he wondered about the city's liability should Sorgenfri default - both in terms of financial loss and injury claims. He also wondered about taxes on the property, whether Sorgenfri as a nonprofit organization would be abie to meet them. He said the city should not become involved in such a precedent setting program, especially as it related to housing for the elderly. Michael Bainbridge, LCOG planner for aging, commented on the termendous need for hous- ing for the elderly close to essential services, particularly for those people having e limited mobility. Restoration of the Palace Hotel, he said, would maintain the "flavor of old Eugene" and at the same time provide involvement for the city in serv- ing senior citizens. It would avoid higher public costs attached to institutions 12/8/75 - 12 ~43