Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o Concept and design n1ay not be unique to Eugene; developer \vould replicate <br />project used in other cities. <br />o May be potential impact on lOth and Chamelton housing project; there may not <br />be enough demand to support that amount of bousing coming into the market at <br />the same time. <br /> <br />Staff concluded powerpoint with information on financial tools: <br />o Taxincrem.ent financing tools could be used; working. under maxImum. <br />indebtedness; may require amending the maximum indebtedness. <br />o Downtown revitalization loans, multi-property tax exemption (MUPTE), federal <br />entitlement grants through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) <br />program, Brownfield grant through the federal Department of Housing and <br />Urban Development (HUD), and other financial tools could be available to <br />finance the project <br /> <br />Staff responded to comments from the committee. <br /> <br />- KWG most attractive proposal; MidTown most difficult <br />- MidTown understands ownership housing; important to get a developer that understands <br />ownership housing. <br />· MidTown least favorite; housing component good, but proposal not strong in commercial <br />and community centered development; not much understanding of cultural sensibilities of <br />Eugene. <br />-MidTown's roots in single family housing? <br />. MidTown projects are automobile oriented with a significant need for parking. <br />. KWG achieves goals of making downtown a neighborhood. It satisfies goal of 24 hour <br />activity" Likes bistoric aspect of proposal. <br />. Negotiating options could be costly. <br />o Response: Difficult to ask property owners to give unlimited options until nlore <br />is lmown about the projects. <br />. Time and scope is tbe essence. Likes small scope of Beam because it may be able to be <br />achieved. Everyone will ask the City for quite a bit of financial assistance, and would be <br />related to the scope of the project. <br /> <br />The ERAC took a short break. <br /> <br />EVALUATION AND RANKING PROCESS OF PROPOSALS <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan explained the role of the ERAe was to make comments about the feasibility of <br />proposals.. However, it was n.ot the committee's role to commit City funds and expressing <br />interest in.a proposal does not commit the City. He stressed the in1portance for continued input <br />from tbe committee throughout the process on scale and feasibility. He said. staff\vould return to <br />the ERAC when a deal was negotiated \vith a developer for review and rec,ommendation before <br />going to the City Council. <br /> <br />Ms. Garrett explained the eval.uation process \vould proceed based upon the identified RFQ <br />Evaluation Criteria.. <br /> <br />MINUTES- <br />Eugene Redevelopment Advisory COnIDlittee <br /> <br />February.23, .2007 <br /> <br />Page <br />