Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Piercy observed that all the downtown projects in process had required a public investment. The <br />question was whether the City was receiving a return on its investment. She wanted information about <br />the project's impact on local employment and questioned whether it was possible to reduce the number of <br />bedrooms per unit. She suggested incentives could be built in to the rent to encourage students to use <br />alternatives like bicycles or We Car. She advocated for state of the art bicycle accommodations in the <br />development to increase bicycle use. Mayor Piercy recommended that the council define more fully what <br />it meant when it discussed "community benefits." <br />Mr. Brown said the City should be aggressive in its negotiations with the developer regarding the rate of <br />return on investment and realize true community benefit. He also suggested the City, rather than the <br />project owner, should benefit from any mortgage interest rate decreases. The City of Portland required <br />developers who exceeded a profit in excess of an agreed upon threshold to pay that profit to the City; <br />developers could also pay it back by providing below- market rate housing for a period following the <br />expiration of the exemption. <br />Mr. Zelenka wanted to hear more about Portland's MUPTE rules. He questioned how the City could <br />know for sure that the project would not be built in the absence of the MUPTE. He encouraged the <br />developer to consider LEED construction and the potential of constructing garages that could be <br />converted to another use. He determined from Ms. Laurence that staff had discussed locating a police <br />substation on the site with the developers and they were interested. <br />Mr. Farr left the meeting for another commitment. <br />Mayor Piercy suggested the council needed to define "community benefit." She considered, for example, <br />the developer's offer to widen the sidewalks serving Olive Plaza to be a community benefit but did not <br />think that councilors were in concurrence as to the term's meaning. <br />Mr. Brown asked for information about other Capstone projects that had received similar tax abatements. <br />Mr. Clark suggested the chief benefit of the development would be that it was built and housed people. <br />He pointed out that in ten years the property would begin to pay tax revenues to the City. He believed the <br />proposed development supported many council goals. <br />Ms. Ortiz declared a potential conflict of interest due to her employment with PeaceHealth, the owner of <br />the property in question. <br />Ms. Ortiz was concerned about the potential that the building currently on the site would remain <br />unoccupied. If the project went forward it would create new jobs and ensure the site was redeveloped, <br />which she considered a community benefit. <br />Ms. Taylor questioned how the City Council could know something else would not be built on the site in <br />the future that provided more community benefit. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if the construction jobs could be filled by local residents. Ms. Laurence said she <br />would follow -up. She understood the developer was already in discussions with local contractors. <br />Mr. Pryor recommended that the council focus on reaching common agreement with the developer over <br />the things that provided common benefit to both parties. He recommended against an approach that was <br />overly proscriptive. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council April 9, 2012 Page 4 <br />Work Session <br />