Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Ruiz characterized the amended proposal as a good investment and said he was impressed with Beam’s <br />commitment to making the project, which was in the heart of downtown, a success. He thought the type of <br />office space would add a new dimension to the inventory of available space. He encouraged the council to <br />continue the project’s forward movement. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy commented that the project continued to meet the council’s goals for revitalizing downtown and <br />was pleased with Beam’s intent to capture as much of the original architectural flavor of structures as <br />possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown asked if housing units were a part of the project and what impact the $7 million reduction in <br />private funding would have. Ms. Laurence said that it had been determined that housing units were not <br />financially feasible as part of the project. Less private funding meant that the historic character of the <br />building’s exterior would be restored at a lower standard and the interior rehabilitation design would be <br />different. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown questioned whether there was sufficient demand for more office space. Ms. Laurence replied <br />that potential tenants had been identified and the leasing agency for the project indicated that the space was <br />unlike any other available in Eugene and therefore had its own market. She said rents would be lower than <br />what was typical for new construction. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown asked about the status of the Washburne Building. Ms. Laurence said rehabilitation of that <br />building was always perceived to be a later phase of the project, once work was completed on Centre Court. <br />Mike Sullivan, Planning and Development Department, noted that the Washburne Building already had <br />tenants and was in better condition than the Centre Court. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said the anticipated rent of $1.45 per square foot did not seem particularly low. Ms. Laurence <br />said rents would be between $1.25 and $1.45 and would provide tenants with options such as renting smaller <br />spaces and spaces with a lower level of finish. She said the space represented a new product. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan added that there was currently no equivalent space in the market. He said that tenants would <br />have the option of refitting space to suit their preferences. The urban industrial design of the space was <br />currently popular in the marketplace. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark expressed concern with the amount of space that would be added to the market and the size of the <br />City’s investment. He pointed out that the project had been chosen because of Beam’s ability to restore the <br />building’s historic structure. Mr. Sullivan said that Beam had approached the State Historic Preservation <br />Office about a more comprehensive historic redevelopment and was told that the extent of previous <br />alterations meant the level necessary for a higher tax credit could never be achieved. Ms. Laurence said the <br />building had sustained some water damage and was undergoing mold abatement. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he was supportive of downtown revitalization efforts and appreciated Beam’s commitment to <br />the project. He asked if using HUD 108 and BEDI funds for the Beam project meant that other opportuni- <br />ties would have to be bypassed while the City waited for the project to come to fruition. Mr. Sullivan said <br />that could be a concern if there was a lengthy delay on the project, but Beam had strong interest from <br />tenants at a level that would allow Beam to meet the interest-only obligation on the HUD 108 loan. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked if all available HUD 108 and BEDI funds were committed to the Beam project and <br />whether funds could be used for other purposes such as street repair. Mr. Sullivan said the HUD 108 loan <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2009 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />