Item B: Ordinance on MUPTE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT F Questions raised by Councilor Bettman in an email received on July 26, 2008. Each are followed by responses from staff. 1) Who is the appraiser quoted in the AIS? And were they paid for their analysis or is it their personal opinions? Not that I disagree with the opinion but, I hope we do not see a proliferation of anonymous but allegedly expert, opinions in the staff analysis for AI - especially multi million dollar decisions. If opinions from a professional expert are needed to bolster an argument, one way or another, then obtain it through channels and have them appear on record for the public to gauge their credentials. Response: Two appraisers, Corey Dingman (Duncan, Brown and Associates) and Roxanne Gillespie MAI (Gillespie and Associates) were contacted by telephone and they provided their opinions without charging the City. Mr. Dingman was among the community members that attended meetings to assist staff with developing a recommendation for objective standards. He is the editor of the Duncan and Brown Apartment Report, a local benchmark for market trends. Both are experienced local commercial real estate appraisers. 2) How do you clearly and objectively define "better" quality construction? What is it "better than" and is there a clear and objective standard of "worse" "better" "best." If this becomes the justification for tax breaks, instead of the existing rational of "an incentive for housing density where it isn't being built;" then there should be definition of quality construction standards. There are clear and objective characteristics to building materials but "worst" would need to be identified and defined i.e. what is the cheapest materials to use and still meet all codes local and state. Then you could define the threshold for "better" than "worse" (begging the question; why wouldn't you require at least the "best" standard, once defined, to qualify for tax breaks.) My point being that we have a code and if we think it doesn't result in the kind of development we want for our city then we should be increasing the standards in the code. Paying developers to build to an undefined standard beyond the code is inequitable (to folks who pay taxes for essential services.) Please define in the ordinance the terms you cite; "better housing" 'better quality" ". Please provide a list of what you consider to be specific elements of a project that exceed the codes. Response: When posing a question to the appraisers related to the quality of the MUPTE-assisted housing compared to the housing built without MUPTE, staff did not specify any specific quality standards to measure against. Rather, a general opinion was requested from two trained and experienced experts. The appraisers who offered their assessment did so for free and did not submit a written report that detailed the basis of their opinions and there was no definition provided. The purpose of MUPTE, based on the history of the adoption of the state statutes, is to encourage housing in the core area and in transit oriented areas. In 2004 it was the decision of the City Council to add quality standards as an element of the local condition for approval. At the time, Council voted to identify examples while making the application of these quality standards subjective. During a work session on Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081022\S081022B.docm