Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

responding to both top-ranked proposals. He was inclined to support the WG Development proposal. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Laurence indicated the staff analysis was based on the development objectives and readiness of the firms to proceed. Mayor Piercy asked if staff had a chance to talk about price. Mr. Sullivan said before the recommendation came out staff only knew WG Development intended to do a market study if it received the award. He had no way to evaluate the firm’s thinking or its numbers, which seemed to be in flux. He believed some of the feasibility work still remained to be done. Ms. Bettman thought the City was in a strong position, which she appreciated. She agreed with the recommendation of staff and the primary value being fulfilled in the RFP by the proposal. In regard to the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) proposed for the site, Ms. Bettman thought the council should be able to determine how much of a tax break that would be; in regard to the potential forgiveness of systems development charge (SDCs), she asked what SDCs were projected for both projects and what the City’s obligation would be. In regard to parking, Ms. Bettman wanted to know if Opus NWR Development would be paying market value for the Broadway Place parking spots; she also wanted to know about WG Development’s arrange- ments for parking. She liked the brick exterior of the WG Development design, which fit in with the library. However, when she considered other Opus NWR Development projects, like the Southgate campus center, they seemed somewhat industrial, and she thought more design work was needed. Ms. Bettman acknowl- edged she had similar problems with the WG Development proposal. She disliked the lack of access between the ground floor offices and the outside, which did not contribute to an active streetscape, and the fact the public square element of the development was actually private. Community Development Director Mike Sullivan anticipated the Opus NWR Development MUPTE would be about $145,000 annually for ten years; the WG Development MUPTE would be about $85,000 annually for ten years due to the mix of commercial and residential. He estimated that Opus NWR Development would pay $210,000 in property taxes in year 11 as opposed to $135,000 for the WG development, a difference of $80,000, and the City would recover the differences between the two exemptions in about 7.5 years. In regard to parking, Mr. Sullivan said the City’s bulk discount for parking permits provided a 20 to 30 percent discount on the face value of parking, which could apply to either development. In regard to SDCS, it was difficult to quantify those without more information about the design given that SDCs depended on plumbing fixtures in some instances. The Opus NWR Development project would yield about $138,000 in permit and inspection fees without respect to plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits; the WG Development would pay about $117,000 in the same fees. Ms. Taylor did not think the council was ready to make a decision. Her first preference was for a park on the site. She had initially liked the Opus NWR Development proposal for student housing, but then began to hear community concerns about previous student housing ventures that failed. She was also concerned about the distance of the development from the campus and the cost of the rents. Regarding the WG Development proposal, Ms. Taylor suggested that the development could include the west building and a park as well. She liked the idea of the UO space being planned. She had been concerned about the $1 price tag placed on the property and wanted more information about that. She also thought a public hearing would be a good idea, with more information about what was involved in each proposal. She tentatively MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 4 Work Session