CC Minutes - 03/12/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Ortiz stressed the importance of making the downtown welcoming to everybody. She averred that the Oakway Mall was often held up as a shining example of success, but the area’s low-income population was not represented in the people who shopped there. She declared that it was not the people who were downtown now that were the problem, it was the “bad behavior.” She felt the bad behavior would go away with an increase in the number of people and families that went downtown to shop, eat, and participate in activities. Ms. Bettman said she was nervous because the council was discussing the criteria on the basis of the proposal because the proposal was conceptual and the components therein could “go away.” She had seen “huge caveats” in the KWG Development Partners proposal on elements such as the housing piece. She averred that the City had KWG Development on board already as the developer had been awarded the RFP th for the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street site. She thought the City should maximize the strength that each developer brought to the table and utilize it so that the broadest range of community values could be included in the proposal. She felt that if the City should go ahead with one developer with a grand concept and the community resisted the concept, the City would face delays in the project and would not be in a position to backtrack. She added that she thought Midtown Development demonstrated a vision in terms of what they had done in other communities and what they had done with commercial space. Mr. Zelenka stressed that he did not wish to delay the project. However, he desired more detail and competition in the process, especially as it related to how much the City would have to invest in the project. He noted his intention to place a substitute motion that would include KWG Development Partners, Beam Development, and Midtown Development. He averred that Midtown deserved to be in the mix because of its focus on housing. He questioned whether the community was prepared to invest $30 or $40 million in a project. Mr. Clark understood that the project would utilize tax increment financing. He did not think the City was having a discussion on asking people for money. Mr. Braud responded that the City would be using existing resources and no new tax was proposed. City Manager Taylor clarified that the scope of the financing would depend on the scope of the project and the tools that would be used. He said there was a relative ratio of private equity investment that would be leveraged by the incentives of public investment. Mr. Clark averred that the council should not be arguing about how to divide the pie; rather it should be discussing ways to “make the pie bigger.” He believed this project would do so by virtue of the fact that it would bring more successful and sustainable businesses to the City of Eugene. He underscored that the City had a working relationship with KWG Development Partners that worked well. He asked what further work the City could do to discover more about the qualifications of the developers who had responded to the RFQ if the City was only talking about qualifications and not about specific plans at this point. Mr. Braud pointed out that staff had asked for a concept as part of the response as a submission require- ment. He said if the council was looking for the financial details, it would be simpler to gain this type of detail from one entity. He added that he was unsure of how much time and effort a developer would put into further development of a project without a firm commitment. Mr. Pryor said he trusted KWG Development Partners and would support the staff recommendation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 6 Work Session