Item 4 - Low-Income Prop Tx Ex. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT F MEMO To: Eugene City Council From: John VanLandingham, chair, Housing Policy Board Date: July 12, 2004 Subject: Housing Policy Board Position Regarding Property Tax Exemption for P3 The Housing Policy Board voted unanimously on June 28, 2004, not to recommend that the City Council grant a property tax exemption to P3 for its proposed 240 rental unit development in the Chase Gardens area. Here are my reasons for my vote. 1. It is my belief, as someone who has worked with the City of Eugene Housing Dispersal Policy for 25 years, that P3's project would violate Dispersal Policy 2, the 60-unit maximum size limit. 2. I do not agree with P3's argument that it is exempt from the Dispersal Policy because its income limitation (as required by the federal tax credits that P3 seeks) is 60 percent of median income, as opposed to the Dispersal Policy's income limitation of 50 percent. As staff noted in its memo, among those 240 units some of them are likely to have residents whose incomes are at or below 50 percent of median income. 3. The Dispersal Policy is written to allow the Council to balance the policy's limitations with "other City concerns and policies." On one previous occasion, the HPB recommended to the Council that it not apply the 60-unit cap to an HPB-supported project on Green Lane in Santa Clara. In that case, the project was targeted to serve families at incomes significantly below 50 percent of median income, and the project was only slightly more than the 60-unit cap. In the HPB's view, both factors warranted an exception from the Dispersal Policy's 60-unit cap. Neither is true with P3's project. 4. The income issue - that P3's project will serve a higher income bracket than do HPB- supported projects - is significant. We currently enjoy the support of private landlords in our affordable housing efforts; one is a long-time member of the HPB. But we have that support because private landlords understand that HPB projects target a population whose incomes are below that of the population that most private landlords serve - in other words, HPB projects are not competing with existing units owned by the private sector. Given P3's higher rents, that cannot be said for its project. And given the current relatively high - for Eugene - vacancy rate for rental units, publicly subsidizing the competition will create bad feeling among private landlords. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040809\S0408094.doc