Laserfiche WebLink
Option 3: Take no action on the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) responses <br /> <br />Mr. Braud reiterated the upcoming public input opportunity on April 30 and noted the upcoming council <br />work sessions scheduled on the topic on May 9 and May 11. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy encouraged councilors to attend the public input opportunity. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked when all the costs would be known. Mr. Braud said that the City requested that <br />information from both developers. He believed that information would be available on May 9. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked if the parking calculation took into account existing utilization. Mr. Braud believed the <br />answer to the question was yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark determined from Mr. Braud that none of the options the City held on downtown property had <br />expired. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked Mr. Braud if the two companies made assumptions about potential tenants. Mr. Braud <br />said they had made assumptions about the market. He said that the market for housing downtown was <br />strong. He suspected that once a project was selected, the project was likely to evolve and could change, <br />particularly after the City head from the community. He said that selection of a concept did not mean <br />anything was set in concrete. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said her preference was for Option 2, particularly since the already approved housing project <br />on the Sears site could be incorporated into the project. She said the Beam project was a small, incremental <br />project that could be started now. The larger KWG project would require a year of study to determine its <br />feasibility. She said that by accepting Option 2, a transition plan for the existing buildings would be <br />created, and the remainder of the footprint would be addressed in a separate process. Once the remainder of <br />the site had gone through public input, the City could issue another Request for Proposals. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the turnkey parking structure was a no-bid contract and she did not see a public hearing <br />scheduled for the structure. Mr. Braud said the City would have to take those steps. He reiterated that the <br />City was still at the conceptual stage. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman recalled that KWG was requiring a 13 percent yield, which could be changed by how much it <br />reimbursed the City for its options. Mr. Braud indicated the 13 percent yield on cost was based on the $18 <br />million property acquisition. That had already been factored into the conceptual pro forma. The amount <br />needed to be injected to reach the 13 percent yield on cost was $1.6 million. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about off-site costs, Mr. Braud said those generally included the <br />costs of sidewalks and landscaping on public property. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked about the location of the 1,000 existing parking spaces. Mr. Braud said most were in <br />Broadway Place but the Overpark and Parcade parking garages were also located within two blocks. Mr. <br />Zelenka asked how many spaces $15.9 million paid for. Mr. Braud estimated it would fund about 300 <br />public parking spaces. Mr. Zelenka observed most people do not know how expensive parking was. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka requested a pro/con comparison on the development options, that is, the developer doing the <br />plan versus the City doing the plan as described by Ms. Bettman. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2007 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />