Laserfiche WebLink
strong enough position to ensure the swift development of the site, and also that the terms of the proposed purchase <br />and sale agreement should be more specifically defined. <br />Ms. Bettman stated her opinion that the WG Development proposal was an overly speculative project to begin with, <br />and that given recent economic downturns the council should seriously reconsider the Opus NWR Development <br />proposal. <br />Ms. Solomon, in addressing the BOLI prevailing wage and MUPTE tax exemption obstacles, noted that unfavorable <br />determinations in either of those areas could ultimately kill the entire development project. She felt that it was highly <br />important that the City investigate the matter more thoroughly before proceeding, perhaps even to the point where the <br />prevailing wage and tax exemption determinations could be finalized before the approval of the purchase and sale <br />agreement. Mr. Sullivan responded that the City would need a finalized purchase and sale agreement to present to <br />the BOLI commissioner before the prevailing wage determination could be made. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked how long the prevailing wage determination from BOLI would take once the final agreements had <br />been submitted. Mr. Sullivan answered that the determination would take approximately 60 days. <br />Ms. Sullivan, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the final draft purchase and sale agreement <br />would need to be signed by all relevant parties no more than 30 days after it had been approved by the council. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if the proposed purchase and sale agreement specified timelines and procedures for termination by <br />either the City or WG in the event that the BOLI determination was unfavorable. Mr. Sullivan answered that the <br />firm property acquisition timeline listed in the purchase and sale agreement would be the timeline in which any such <br />termination procedures would need to operate. <br />Mr. Sullivan added that BOLI’s threshold requirement for making the prevailing wage determination was a finalized <br />draft of the purchase and sale agreement, and that any termination of the project would subsequently be operating <br />under the terms listed in the agreement. <br />Mr. Ruiz asked if Mr. Zelenka was asking for some sort of pull-the-plug provision in the contract for the City where <br />within a certain number of days after the BOLI determination all parties would be required to move forward as <br />agreed. Mr. Zelenka answered that he did not want the City to be put in a position where WG would wait until the <br />very end of the due diligence period only to withdraw from their commitments because of the prevailing wage <br />determination. <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Solomon’s position that the prevailing wage issue could ultimately kill the project. <br />Mr. Sullivan responded to Mr. Zelenka’s comments by saying that some sort of short term trigger to terminate the <br />project after the BOLI prevailing wage determination had been made would be a reasonable approach to take. <br />Ms. Laurence, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the repurchase price of the property would be <br />the original purchase price paid by WG Development, $500,000, minus any forfeited deposits. She added that the <br />repurchase price could be reduced depending on encumbrances or liens by no more than $450,000. <br />Mr. Zelenka noted his support for the MUPTE tax exemption for the project, and stated he would be willing to revise <br />the timeline for the project to provide an additional six months in the hopes that economic conditions might improve <br />within that period. <br />Mr. Zelenka maintained that the City should be willing to shift gears and open the site to other development <br />proposals such as Opus NW should WG Development not proceed with the project in a timely and efficient manner. <br /> <br />MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />