CC Minutes - 10/22/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Laurence continued to review the remainder of the proposed purchase and sale agreement for the benefit of the council, also noting that the due diligence period described therein ended on March 30, 2009, not March 30, 2008, as was listed in the materials distributed to the council. Ms. Laurence noted that the alley vacation listed as part of the proposed purchase and sale agreement would not be finalized during the work session, but that the application for the alley vacation would be presented to the council for their approval in the near future. Ms. Laurence proceeded to describe the parking characteristics of the development project, as well as the initial project timeline that was listed in her October 13, 2007, memo to the council. Additionally, Ms. Laurence noted that the permits for the project were to be submitted no later than November 30, 2009, with construction to begin within 30 days after permits were issued. Ms. Laurence noted that, according to projected timelines, permits for the development project were expected to be issued in February of 2010. Ms. Laurence described additional provisions from the proposed purchase and sale agreement, including the right to repurchase, the possible application of MUPTE or vertical housing tax exemptions, and BOLI prevailing wage determinations. Ms. Laurence restated the staff recommendation from the agenda item summary before briefing the council on the next steps of the project should the terms be approved as recommended. Ms. Laurence reported that staff had worked with Opus NW Development to suggest alternative sites for their proposed student-housing development project. She noted a letter from Opus Vice President John Bartell which expressed that none of the 14 alternative sites evaluated met the criteria for the development project Opus NW had th initially intended for the 10 and Charnelton site. She noted that Opus had investigated the possibility of acquiring th the north half block of the 10 and Charnelton site, but concluded that doing so would be significantly more expensive than the south half-block of the site that was to be developed by WG. Ms. Taylor commented that the WG Development project did not look promising to her. She requested clarification on the matter of prevailing wages under BOLI standards. Mr. Sullivan responded that prevailing wages would be determined by the BOLI commissioner with respect to whether or not the development project could be considered a public work. Mr. Sullivan added that the prevailing wage for the project would most likely be well above what was required by recently passed City ordinances. Ms. Taylor expressed that the right to repurchase clause of the agreement might be overly advantageous to WG Development, and was worried that the City might find itself right back where it started if the development on the site was somehow carried out improperly or untimely and the City needed to exercise the right to repurchase. Ms. Laurence responded that the right to repurchase clause was part of standard purchase and sale agreement language. Mr. Ruiz noted that the City wanted to maintain some sort of leverage against any developers to ensure that the projects were carried out in a proper and timely manner. Ms. Laurence reiterated that the $50,000 deposit paid by WG Development against the property would become non-refundable once the due diligence period had expired. Ms. Piercy recalled that the council had requested the right to repurchase be included in the proposed purchase and sale agreement so that the City could ensure that the property would not lay dormant and undeveloped for extended periods of time. Mr. Ruiz agreed with Ms. Piercy’s recollection. Ms. Bettman asked for clarification of the parameters surrounding the right to repurchase as it had been proposed. She felt that the relatively small amount of the deposit WG had placed on the property did not leave the City in a MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 3 Work Session