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

Home Browse Search

©RI response to the downtown. He suggested that the council remain with the process as outlined. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about Mr. Papa's use of the word "competition," saying he considered the provision of additional time a way of letting each party do more due diligence. He asked for staff's reaction to that. He also assumed that if the motion passed and one or both parties were not comfortable with it, staff would return in the near-term to inform the council of that fact. Mr. Sullivan responded that the proposers might consider that the motion set up a competition. He said that if the motion passed, staff would return to the two parties to determine their continued interest. Mr. Sullivan suggested that the motion essentially requested those responding to the RFP to do what they just did. Mr. Meisner indicated support of the motion with some reservations. He was not interested in providing a temporary or permanent public subsidy to move jobs from one part of the city to another part. He said that selection of the ©RI proposal could mean that the City could actually end up "in the hole" since the response required mediation. Referring to the financial analysis, Ms. Nathanson said that it did not address the fact that although ORI would bring in no tax revenue, to the extent it contributed to a healthy downtown, property taxes would increase with a commensurate benefit to the City. She asked City Manager Taylor to comment. City Manager Taylor noted his support for the ORI response because of its simplicity, the jobs involved, and the history of the organization in the community. He pointed out that if ORI was not able to develop an acceptable financial package in a reasonable time period, the City could move rapidly to re-engage in discussions with the Fogelstrom Group. He preferred the more detailed staff-proposed motion. Mayor Torrey believed that with more certainty about the financial feasibility of the ORI response, the council would support it outright. He questioned whether the City Council would have the information it needed from ORI in six months, and asked how the City could keep Fogelstrom Group involved in that period. Mr. Braud said that in addition to providing more information about the grant, ORI would need to identify its entire funding package in that time period, as well as select a capable developer. Ms. Bettman asked if the motion would prejudice ©Rl's ability to seek funding. Mr. Braud did not know, but said it could be an issue. Ms. Bettman agreed. Ms. Bettman said that some of Fogelstrom Group's numbers appeared to be overly optimistic, and that appeared to indicate a lack of experience with such projects. Mr. Braud said an analysis of the downtown housing market by the consulting firm EcoNorthwest indicated that it cost more to build in downtown, and that downtown housing generally required a significant public subsidy. He concurred with Ms. Bettman that the Fogelstrom Group's response did not reflect those facts. Ms. Bettman believed the staff-proposed motion was more professional and cleaner than the motion offered by Mr. Pap~, and indicated her intent to offer it as a substitute motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to enter into negotiations for the sale of the Sears development site to ©RI, for development consistent with the response to the RFP, on terms and for such amount that he determines is in the public interest, final terms of which would be approved by the URA, allowing ORI up to six months to demonstrate satisfactory progress towards selection of a developer and identification of financing sources. In the event that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 8 Work Session