Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly thought the mixed-income nature of the Sockeye response a good one. While he <br />thought a systems development charge (SDC) waiver was a significant public subsidy, he pointed <br />out that in the past the City waived SDCs for Iow-income housing projects and paid for the cost <br />from another fund. He suggested that SDCs could be waived for the Iow-income portion of the <br />Sockeye development. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Braud that the council would review the terms and conditions <br />related to the final agreement in an executive session. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted the grant application date was several months out, and asked what more <br />information ©RI could provide the City two months after that. Mr. Braud said that the City would <br />know that ©RI made the application, but it would not know the grant results until May 2004. Mr. <br />Kelly said that the delay made the time line for the Fogelstrom Group's response appear not <br />unreasonable. He liked both responses. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Braud that ©RI was a tax-exempt entity, which would pay the City <br />no property taxes. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ concurred with Ms. Taylor about the positive impact of an increase in downtown <br />employees. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ confirmed with Mr. Braud that the Fogelstrom Group's project would bring about 128 <br />residents downtown. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Braud said that the City did not own all the <br />surface parking adjacent to the former Sears building, and he anticipated that Fogelstrom and <br />Sockeye would be interested in its acquisition. He believed that they would determine whether to <br />move forward with that acquisition on the basis of the success of the first phase of development. <br />He confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, that all of the housing <br />responses were phased. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman saw no commitment to the second phase in the materials before the council, and <br />that was a concern to her. If only the Sears portion of the site was developed, the developer <br />would make back its investment from the revenue from parking alone. Mr. Braud clarified that the <br />City would probably not sell the one-eighth block of surface parking if the developer was not going <br />to move forward with the entire development. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked about downtown commercial vacancy rates. Local property appraiser John <br />Brown said for retail uses, vacancy rates downtown were about ten percent but he anticipated that <br />would drop in the future. Ms. Bettman suggested that issue should be considered when the <br />council discussed whether it wanted mixed use in the same building or whether it wanted to see <br />an anchor for the rest of downtown. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked staff where ©RI was likely to locate if it did not locate downtown. Mr. Sullivan <br />said that ©RI had looked throughout the community, and was interested in both the downtown and <br />at the Riverfront Research Park. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked what would happen if the City put both the ©RI and Fogelstrom Group <br />responses on hold for six months. Mr. Braud said that the question was hard to answer. Mayor <br />Torrey asked if the two parties would opt out because they had no guarantee of location. He was <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />