Laserfiche WebLink
70 <br /> <br />51 Change state law <br />regarding SUPTE 12% <br /> <br />Strategy 3Strategy 3Strategy 3Strategy 3 <br /># Option Support Comments for Caution, Trade-Off <br />Comments Against <br />20 <br />Identify new Revenue <br />sources for Affordable <br />housing units. <br />93% <br />Too vague to be useful, but <br />sure. <br />A mix of sources is better <br />than relying on just one. <br />No ideas from H,T & S. Process <br />shouldn't be implemented until <br />there is substantial fact finding <br />public cost/benefit discussion <br />20 -A <br />Shift money from the City’s <br />General Fund, which would <br />shift funding from other City <br />services, to support <br />Affordable Housing. <br />54% <br />20 -B <br />Charge a construction excise <br />tax (CET) to raise resources <br />for Affordable housing <br />developments. <br />68% <br />Like putting money into <br />infrastructure <br />Prefer this over 20E <br />Gives community money to <br />leverage (for matching $$) <br />More predictable than 20C <br />Burdens construction industry <br />Not sure of impacts, devils in the <br />details that are TBD <br />Complicated! <br />20 -C <br />Use local government bonds <br />to fund the construction of <br />Affordable housing <br />developments. <br />82% <br /> Spreads the burden across <br />the city. <br />Provides critical funds <br />No guarantee that this will pass, <br />it is risky and if this is the only <br />option we could end with <br />nothing <br />Burden on homeowners <br />Getting close to hitting bond and <br />levy caps and so we’ll have to <br />give up some of our others <br />20 -D Charge an Affordable <br />housing impact fee. 7% Not sure how would help <br />20 -E <br />Charge a CET on a sliding <br />scale by the size of the <br />development (especially <br />residential) (variation on 20- <br />B) <br />75% <br />Affordable housing> is <br />scalable <br />Sliding scale (x3) <br />More equality <br />Flexibility <br /> <br />20 -F <br />Create a working group to <br />study this option in depth <br />and include sensible <br />recommendations. <br />0% REMOVED- this is an option for all options <br /> <br />21 Increase density bonus for <br />qualified Affordable housing 79% <br />Increased density = increased <br />availability=more people in <br />homes <br />Does not comply with comp plan <br />& Envision Eugene, <br />neighborhood opportunity <br />22 Inclusionary Zoning (IZ). 17% <br />22 -A <br /> Mandatory IZ—Under state <br />law, this could apply to any <br />buildings with 20 or more <br />units. State law requires <br />0% <br />December 12, 2018, Work Session - Item 2