CC Minutes - 03/10/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Braud said the commissions recommendation was based on the criteria in the RFP, which included team = qualifications, relevant project experience, performance with the planning and design criteria, readiness to proceed, financial return to the City, and financial capacity of the proposer. The Jennings proposal appeared to be responsive to the criteria. The density proposed was about 48 units per acre and staff believed the character of the development would be compatible with downtown and the councils vision for downtown. He noted that = the Jennings Team also offered the City the highest purchase price. Mr. Braud noted two contingencies included in the Jennings proposal: 1) a six-month due diligence period during which the proposer would refine the design and do further market analysis and marketing of the units to be constructed; and 2) access to the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) program. He noted that currently the property was not included in the MUPTE boundaries and anticipated that staff would return for a discussion of possible boundary amendments in May 2003. Mr. Braud emphasized that the preferred proposal was still in the conceptual phase and it was likely there would be design changes. He requested council authorization for the City Manager to open negotiations with the Jennings Team. He noted the Planning Commissions recommendation that if the proposal did not move = forward, the other three proposals be reconsidered. Mayor Torrey solicited a first round of council comments and questions. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Braud said that the City had previously negotiated a $320,000 price for the property. The previous proposer had proposed a townhouse project and it did not appear it would pencil out at that price. The project now before the council was a slightly different project serving a different A@ market. He indicated, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Papé, that the first proposer had no interest in doing commercial on the ground floor and it would have required a zone change for the project to proceed. Referring to the proposers request for a six-month due diligence period, Mr. Papé asked if the proposer was = willing to put down earnest money that could be forfeited if the project did not proceed. Mr. Braud believed that could be discussed. He said that the respondent wanted more time to work out the issues involved, and added that all the respondents to the RFP would need time for the City to reach a final decision. Mr. Sullivan noted that the RFP included a provision for a ten percent refundable earnest deposit. Mr. Papé did not support keeping the property off the market for six months without some sort of compensation. Ms. Bettman supported the Planning Commission recommendation but had concerns with the process. She was particularly concerned about the potential of taking the property off the market without giving the other proposers a chance to refine their proposals. She asked at what point the City would determine that changes to the selected proposal meant that it had changed to the degree it would not meet the RFP criteria, triggering the issuance of another RFP. Mr. Braud did not think the City was precluded from going back to the other RFP respondents if the selected proposal did not work out. Mr. Sullivan said that there was no established parameter that would require the issuance of another RFP. He understood Ms. Bettmans concern that the = project that was selected was the project that was wanted, perhaps with minor changes. He emphasized that staff intended to be faithful to the intent of the Planning Commission while acknowledging there would probably be some unpredicted changes. He said that the City was looking to maintain the unit count and MINUTESEugene City Council March 10, 2003 Page 3 C Work Session