CC Minutes - 05/12/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Speaking to the issue of parking, Mr. Braud said that some of the parking could be absorbed by Broadway Place, although not all of it. He said that a matrix in the packet included some information on the tax exemption issue. He said that the other three responses would probably also include a ten-year tax exemption. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's concerns regarding mixed-use, Mr. Braud said that the staff recommendation was based in part more on feasibility than use. He said that ORI was not opposed to retail and might be open to negotiations about the topic. Mr. Meisner asked if ORI had applied for the federal grant mentioned in the materials. Mr. Braud indicated that ORI intended to apply for the grant in October 2003 as that was the next available opportunity. Ms. Nathanson referred to the financial return to the City, and asked what the City would have expected to receive compared to what it paid for the parcel, what it would like to receive, and what it needed to receive to make the deal work for the citizens. With regard to the federal rules, Ms. Nathanson asked if anyone had explored with the federal granting agency whether exceptions to the grant time line were allowed, and what it takes to get an exception. She asked if the district's congressional representative help ORI in securing an exception. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the one-tenant approach proposed by ORI made the response both attractive and risky. She believed there was greater risk to the City of having a single tenant in the building as opposed to having multiple tenants. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to speak to the potential longevity of ORI. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to compare the readiness to proceed and financial feasibility of the ORI and Fogelstrom Group responses. Mr. Braud deferred Ms. Nathanson's questions about the federal grant process to ORI. Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Department indicated that ORI believed the federal granting source could limit its options to research-only purposes. Ms. Nathanson said it appeared that while the federal government would not provide 100 percent of project costs, it controlled ORl's abilities to raise the needed revenue, which did not seem fair. Mr. Sullivan concurred. In response to Ms. Nathanson's questions about the financial return of the Sears site to the City, Mr. Braud said the Sears site was purchased for about $900,000. The three-quarter block site, which included the new library property, would now be valued at about $1.5 million. He thought the City would come out ahead in the purchase over time. Mr. Sullivan added that the original value of the site was recovered through the library project alone, without consideration of the site the former Sears building stood on. Mr. Carlson recommended that if the City realized any additional money from the site, the money be directed to the Facilities Reserve. Mr. Braud addressed Ms. Nathanson's question about ORl's longevity, saying that it was difficult to predict the future, but given ORl's 40-year history he thought it would be around for some time. Mr. Kelly believed all four projects being proposed would be good additions to downtown. He asked what a multi-family housing revenue bond was, and how it would be guaranteed. Mr. Sullivan said that staff had some awareness of the instrument, which was allowed for in the federal statutes, but it had never been used in Eugene. He understood it was an appropriate tool for a mixed-income project, but the City had, to this point in time, only supported Iow-income projects. However, staff was interested in pursuing its use for this site or other downtown sites. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 4 Work Session