Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Ortiz noted her support of the BMC redevelopment project but also noted her concern that members <br />of the community would perceive the proposal as "good old boys just helping each other out." She asked <br />if any other local property development firms had expressed interest in the vacant parcel adjacent to the <br />Centre Court building. Mr. Braud noted that although representatives from Beam Development had <br />conferred with other local property development firms, the BMC proposal had been determined as the <br />only viable project that had met the redevelopment criteria. <br />Ms. Ortiz was pleased that BMC was a local development firm and further hoped that the project would <br />ultimately be constructed by local construction firms. <br />Mr. Braud, responding to a comment from Mr. Zelenka, stated that no City money would be used for the <br />BMC project with the exception of certain funds to be provided from the City's Downtown Revitalization <br />Loan program. Mr. Braud further maintained that the amount from the loan program used for the BMC <br />project would be less than $1 million. <br />Mr. Braud reinforced the information in the agenda item summary memorandum that the underlying debt <br />on the subject property of approximately $404,000 might need to be restructured in some way. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked how the council and staff might consider additional allocations of the recovery zone <br />facility bonds for other projects beyond the BMC proposal. Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that Congress <br />had not yet made any determination as to whether the facility bond funds would be extended. She further <br />noted that the State of Oregon was also currently seeking recovery zone facility bond funding for another <br />large project. She stated that if the City of Eugene missed its opportunity to use the recovery zone facility <br />bond funding there would not be a similar opportunity in the future. <br />Mr. Braud, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, confirmed that the recovery zone facility bonds <br />were not eligible for the development of residential housing. <br />Mr. Braud, responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Zelenka, stated that the staff's reference to a <br />subordination of the existing $404,000 downtown revitalization loan program financing addressed the <br />City's current lien on the subject property. He continued to describe the financing process whereby the <br />City's lien would be subordinated to BMC's financial obligations regarding the development of the <br />property. <br />Mr. Braud, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, described the distinctions between the City's <br />10,000 square feet occupation requirement versus the City's additional 10,000 square foot lease <br />requirement. He further noted that the City's lease obligations would be reduced as private sector <br />commitments for the leased space in the building were added and that in the best-possible scenario the <br />City would never be made to make payments on the leased square footage once the building had been <br />constructed. <br />Mr. Braud, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, stated it might be possible that the City would be <br />released from its 20,000 square foot commitment in the event that other interested parties stepped in to <br />take over the space. <br />Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, stated that the remainder of the recovery <br />zone facility bonds could not be used in place of the City's facility reserves for the construction or <br />development of a new police facility. <br />Ms. Taylor was supportive of the BMC proposal and was also pleased that BMC was a local firm. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2010 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />