Laserfiche WebLink
worried about delaying the process for a year and then ending up with nothing. Mr. Braud <br />responded that in the case of the Fogelstrom Group's response, the question was what more the <br />City would want to see. He believed that the expectations of ORI would be more clear. He said <br />that the Fogelstrom Group's response was more speculative because it depended on the <br />marketability of the residential units proposed, and he questioned whether six months would <br />provide the City with any more information in that regard. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mr. Meisner and Mr. PapS's earlier remarks, Ms. Taylor said that while the City would <br />not receive taxes from ORI, she thought that over a ten-year period it would attract tax-paying <br />entities downtown, while she did not see the same result from a residential development. She did <br />not think that downtown residents would necessarily stay downtown as they might work <br />someplace else. She believed the benefit of having more employees downtown would be the fact <br />they would naturally patronize downtown businesses. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner suggested that ORl's response to the RFP was even more speculative than the <br />Fogelstrom Group's response given that the organization had not written the needed grant. He <br />thought ORl's offer was financially inadequate and assumed that future negotiations would occur. <br />Mr. Braud concurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner assumed there would be a penalty clause for breaching an option without meeting its <br />conditions in any agreement between the agency and ORI. Mr. Braud said that such a clause <br />could be included. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 endorsed an approach that would keep two responses on the table to create a more <br />competitive environment. He asked what the property in question yielded in revenues now. Mr. <br />Braud said that the City realized about $25,000 yearly for the surface parking. He noted that the <br />first-floor tenant in the former Sears building recently gave the City notice, and he believed it <br />would be difficult to bring in a new tenant due to the poor condition of the building. He said that <br />the tenant lease netted approximately $15,000 annually. Responding to a follow-up question from <br />Mr. PapS, Mr. Braud said that both the Fogelstrom Group and Arlie & Company indicated their <br />intent to use the basement of the former Sears building for underground parking. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly assumed that there would be a non-refundable deposit associated with the property. He <br />also liked an approach that kept two responses on the table for some period of time, suggesting <br />nine to twelve months. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that he downgraded the Sockeye response in his evaluation because of the <br />financial return and the subsidy being requested; however, he praised the firm's work in Portland <br />and said he would like to see it do work in Eugene. He said he rejected the Arlie response <br />because of financing and the firm's inability to point to other similar projects it had done. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly observed that the Fogelstrom Group had done several speculative ventures that had <br />proved to be successful, including the Quail Run development. It appeared the company had <br />done its homework on the response. However, it was hard to argue against a long-time firm like <br />ORI with several hundred employees. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson concurred with Mr. Kelly's latter remarks regarding ORI. She said that it appeared <br />from the numbers alone that the responses submitted by the Fogelstrom Group and ORI were the <br />top two candidates. The intangible results also argued for those responses. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />