Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman asked for elaboration on the developers’ reliance on the projection of a better lending <br />environment at the end of 2009 and the risk that posed. Ms. Laurence said staff used the analysis from <br />Johnson Gardner, financial consultant, to determine where developers were in expected markets. She said <br />the analysis assumed a conservative increase between now and 2011, but that remained a risk factor. Mike. <br />Sullivan, Planning and Development, added that if there was significant pre-leasing and equity in a project, <br />the development would be able to move forward, assuming the revenue model was appropriate. He said the <br />WG borrowing model was somewhat lower than market, while the Opus model was more consistent with the <br />market. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked why WG did not go forward with the feasibility study to provide greater assurance. Mr. <br />Sullivan opined that WG was waiting until one was required by a financial institution. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that abatement costs were not included and WG had indicated that the City would need <br />to pay any abatement costs. Mr. Sullivan said that previous site studies had not indicated any potential <br />abatement concerns. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the WG proposal did not specify who would pay the cost of administering the grant for <br />public art. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka observed that the three percent rate of return for the Opus project was far below what investors <br />typically wanted. Mr. Sullivan said the Opus business plan was to build, stabilize and sell, with sale <br />proceeds becoming part of the total return; on that basis the performance was quite good. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka noted that there was less public subsidy for the WG project. Mr. Sullivan noted that the <br />primary difference was the tax exemption value based on housing investment; the Opus project included far <br />more housing units. <br /> <br />In response to a comment from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Sullivan said Pacific University had made a commitment <br />of interest for 20,000 square feet of space in the WG project. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark expressed his pleasure with the two proposals and said one of the questions was which was more <br />appropriate from a design perspective on the site across from the Downtown Library. He asked if WG <br />project’s courtyard would be private or public space. Ms. Laurence said she understood the courtyard <br />would be privately owned, but available for public use under certain circumstances. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark noted that the WG project was willing to make space available for a public safety kiosk, which <br />would be a benefit to that area in downtown if the City had the capacity to staff it. He also liked the Opus <br />project and the developer’s financial stability and proven track record, but favored the WG project because <br />of the level of local involvement and commitment. He hoped the City could find a way to facilitate both <br />projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy asked if staff had determined the feasibility of moving forward with both projects in the <br />th <br />downtown area. Ms. Laurence said there were no other sites in downtown equivalent to the 10 and <br />Charnelton site that were owned by the City, but there were some privately held parcels that could be <br />investigated. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy noted that the Lane Transit District station on the east side of the library included a public safety <br />kiosk. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 30, 2008 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />