Item 4A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

MUPTE involved small, local developers doing small, quality projects. He suggested that “incentivizing” local, small builders was a better strategy as they had more incentive to build a higher quality project. Mr. Weinman pointed out that almost all the MUPTE applications were from local builders, with the possible exception of Broadway Center and Broadway Place. Most of those projects were still locally owned. Mr. Zelenka asked if the developments were higher quality because they were locally owned. Mr. Weinman attributed the higher quality to more stringent City standards. Mr. Clark indicated he would not support the motion. He was concerned about the amount of affordable housing in the core and he thought changing the boundaries would mean no more such housing would be built. He had spoken to Campus Housing Coordinator Mike Eyster of the University of Oregon (UO) earlier that day, who indicated there was a demand for on-campus housing but the UO was reluctant to build more because it created more public safety burdens for the City. The AIS indicated that the City had very low vacancy rates around the UO and in order for development to be economically feasible, rents must be sufficiently high to repay the loan. He pointed out that the higher the cost, the higher the rents people must pay. If the City was not involved in development in the area he feared that would contribute to a diminution of affordable housing in the area. He said that rents were increasing well above wages, and that was a concern to him. Ms. Bettman said that taxpayers were not in the business of development, but rather had their elected official leverage their money to achieve a public good. She said that student housing would get built anyway. Most students lived on campus in other university towns and very few lived off campus. It was unusual for a community to have to accommodate so many students outside a university system. She thought the arguments in favor of MUPTE were salient when applied to downtown and lost credibility when that focus was removed. Infill was happening in the other areas and there was no reason not to collect taxes from those developments to support needed services. Speaking to the glossary and the definition for low-income housing, Ms. Bettman objected that the definition for low-income housing was 80 percent of the median income of families or persons in Lane County, when the definition for affordable housing was 60 percent of the median income, which she believed was $38,000 in Lane County directly after the census. She speculated it had increased to $42,000 and maintained that the City had redefined low-income housing for the purpose of the ordinance. She asked staff to provide a definition of low-income housing consistent with the State definition . Mr. Weinman said that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defined “low-income” as 80 percent of median and very low-income as 50 percent of median; usually, “affordable” referred to median-income housing. Ms. Bettman requested that information. Mr. Clark requested information comparing property tax revenue yields if the projects supported by MUPTE had not been built. Mr. Pryor determined from Mr. Weinman that the boundary was expanded in 2004 after about a year of council discussion. Mr. Weinman said the boundaries were expanded because when the area had been shrunk in size previously, no multi-family development occurred at all. The council later discussed the tool as part of the tools available to help downtown and decided to expand the boundary. There had been some more limited development employing the MUPTE since that time. Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor about the impact of the MUPTE in terms of enabling development, Mr. Weinman said the appraiser he had spoken to felt the MUPTE was pretty important to fostering development, and that the City would not see much development without it. That which did occur could be of poorer quality. Mr. Pryor suggested that the activity seemed to follow the boundary. Mr. Weinman agreed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 10 Work Session