CC Minutes - 12/08/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

use office/residential use was a good one and expressed the hope the City would negotiate a fair price for the site. Ms. Taylor was concerned about selling City properties for less than the appraised values. She was also concerned that the properties could be resold for a greater profit, and asked if the City had guarantees that the responses to the RFPs would be carried out. She wanted the full appraised price and guarantees for the projects proposed. Mr. Farmer said that the City would negotiate such guarantees as part of the sale agreement. The City would also attempt to increase the selling prices of each property in negotiations. Mr. Johnson added that staff would return to the council with the results of the negotiations and request its concurrence. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Meisner regarding the Sears Building RFP. He added that some of the restrictions included in the RFP had served to restrict the number of responses and would probably have a dampening effect on the sale price. He said that if the City sold the property, it needed to consider the impact of the parameters of the RFP on the selling price. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Johnson confirmed that the Planning Commission did not recommend that the council adopt the RFP response to the Olive Street site that met the appraised value. Mr. Pap8 asked if there was anything in the recommended proposal that would make the property more valuable on the tax rolls at a later time. Mr. Farmer said that staff had not looked at the issue from a tax estimate point of view; instead, staff had looked at the uniqueness of the proposal in terms of the housing it included. He believed that if the housing was not built on the site, it would not be built elsewhere in the area. The medical use proposed in the RFP meeting the appraised value could be easily located elsewhere in the area. Mr. Kelly endorsed postponing the Sears Building RFP. Regarding the issue of the appraised values, Mr. Kelly said that he also wanted to maximize the dollar return to the City, but the council made a policy decision that the properties were key properties in the downtown that had the potential to impact the future look and feel of downtown, and established criteria that might reduce the number of responses and result in less money. Mr. Kelly endorsed the proposal for the library site. He also liked the recommended response to the Olive Street site, saying it was an opportunity to expose the community to more rowhouse design and to increase home ownership in the core area. He noted the respondent's previous successful and attractive local developments. Mr. Kelly believed that the proposal was lacking some detail, and asked the manager and Planning and Development Department staff to ensure that the negotiating process included the development of that detail. Mr. Rayor also liked the recommended response for the library site. He noted his opposition to a land exchange, saying it took an existing, tax-paying property off the tax rolls. Mr. Rayor asked if the City could legally accept an RFP that was valued at less than a competing RFP. City Attorney Glenn Klein said yes. He said that the RFP process was not governed by public contracting laws. The RFP document stipulated that costs would be one of many factors the City would consider. Ms. Nathanson expressed appreciation for the RFP process and the Planning Commission's role in the process. She hoped similar processes would be used in the future for the disposal of City- owned property. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that this was the first time such a process had been MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m.