Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/22/07 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall October 22, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the special meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy noted the recent Oregon Recreation and Parks Association conference in Eugene. She said the interested parties recently came together for what she termed a ‘very preliminary’ conversation about the future of Civic Stadium. Since the last meeting, she had welcomed the mayor of Eugene’s sister city, Kakagawa,, and said the visit had been a wonderful experience. Mayor Piercy reported that she had also th visited the Food for Lane County dining room on 8 Avenue, opened the Western Oregon Women’s Conference, and presented the Voles Step Sustainability award at the Eugene Chamber of Commerce Business Expo to Autohaus, a firm she commended for its great jobs and benefits and environmental stewardship. Mr. Pryor also recognized the visit of the Kakegawa delegation and said the council had had a nice lunch with delegation members. He noted that kudzu was considered a nuisance in the United States but was considered a useful plant species in Japan. Mr. Pryor reported that he and Ms. Ortiz attend the Bethel Neighborhood Watch Summit the previous week. Mr. Pryor said the Human Services Commission (HSC)) was in the process of redesigning its organizational structure and had considered consolidating into a single board to manage the Community Health Center oversee multiple human services functions. The Board of County Commissioners had not been comfortable with that approach and the HSC was now considering a separate Community Health Center function. Mr. Pryor noted the council’s reception of a letter from a broad spectrum of citizens regarding the implementation of House Bill 3337. He suggested that rather than consider the bill’s implementation onerous, the City consider the passage of the bill an opportunity to accomplish something larger. The letter asked the City to consider taking a larger look and consider accomplishing several tasks related to the inventory. He suggested the information could also be employed by the West Eugene Collaborative. Mr. Zelenka reported that he had been out of town since the last meeting at a conference in San Diego. He complimented Mayor Piercy and Ms. Bettman for their presentations on KLCC the previous day. He noted he had attended the South University Neighborhood (SUN) meeting and heard a briefing on Eugene 08 and MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 1 Work Session how that would impact the neighborhood. He anticipated an amazing event and said he would bring back a motion to the council to clarify its actions related to the matching grants the council allocated to the neighborhoods. He did not believe the match was intended to be matching but rather the grant requests were to be processed under the Neighborhood Matching Grant Program rules. Mr. Zelenka said the SUN received a neighborhood matching grant and constructed a kiosk for information rd about neighborhood events in University Park at University Street and 23 Avenue. Mr. Clark was very happy to see the letter referenced by Mr. Pryor, saying it was a conversation the community needed to have in an open and transparent way. He was happy to see so many people were interested in the discussion. Mr. Clark said he enjoyed the lunch with the Kakegawa delegates. Mr. Clark said the HRC had elected Annette Leonard as the new chair and Paloma Reza as the new chair, and had said goodbye to some old friends while acknowledging the work ahead. He had raised the issue discussed by the council regarding the use of the word “citizen.” The commission was also working on the taxi accessibility issue and some innovative ways to approach that issue. Mr. Clark asked to be recognized for a later motion. Mr. Clark noted his attendance at the Chamber event mentioned by the mayor and said he and Mr. Poling worked to promote sustainability while at the event. Mr. Clark thanked public safety staff for their work on Safety Day at the Home Depot on October 20. Ms. Taylor said the delegation appreciated the councilors in attendance. She said those in attendance had a good time. She said the two neighborhood groups she represented were very interested in the council’s work on Crest Drive and the Amazon headwaters. Ms. Taylor recalled that she requested some information about how much the City had spent to date on the West Broadway project and had not yet received an answer. That included the cost of the committee and the options. She asked how much had been spent to renew the options and if any of the properties involved had been purchased. Mr. Poling thanked Jan Bohman for her work putting the City’s Chamber booth together. He noted the upcoming Cal Young neighborhood association meeting on October 24. He reminded those viewing that ballots had been sent out and encouraged residents to read the voters pamphlet and vote. Mr. Poling noted the passing of resident Lucy Lahr, who was involved in a fatal hit and run incident. He extended the council’s condolences to Ms. Lahr’s partner and family. He said that Ms. Lahr was involved in too many activities to mention and would be missed. He was happy to see the police had made an arrest in the hit and run incident. Ms. Ortiz also extended her condolences to the Lahr family and said the intersection involved was very unsafe. She wanted to meet with neighborhood residents about possible solutions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said she had also attended the Business Expo. She said the members of the Whiteaker Business Summit had been there and it was ready to go to work and members wanted to know what they could and could not do. Ms. Ortiz said she attended the Western Women’s Conference and had followed the Latino strand, in which more than 50 Latino, Spanish speaking women met concurrently. She said the meeting was amazing, and she commended the community advocates who spearheaded the effort, Carmen Urbina, Gualalupe Quinn, and Francisca Johnson. Ms. Solomon arrived. Ms. Ortiz announced that the Department of Environmental Quality would talk more about railroad yard pollution on November 1 from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Ms. Ortiz welcomed new Councilor Coordinator Margaret Harter. Mayor Piercy also extended her condolences to the family of Ms. Lahr. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to authorize the expenditure of $1,000 to pro- vide general assistance for the symposium on “Bringing Human Rights Home,” a confer- ence to explore ways city government can improve and be more proactive in addressing human rights matters. The source of funds requested is to be the general fund contingency account. Mr. Clark said the symposium, which was scheduled for November 9, had been fully developed after the budget was finalized. The cost represented the City’s portion of the event. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 3 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: ACQUISITION OF BEVERLY/GREEN PROPERTIES City Manager pro tem Angel Jones deferred to City Attorney Glenn Klein. Mr. Klein referred the council to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and reviewed its contents. The AIS provided an overview of the appraisal process. He anticipated the council would be able to act on the acquisition after the geotechnical drilling on the properties occurred; the council vote was scheduled for December 10, 2007. Mr. Klein said the length of time that the appraisal took would depend on how long it took to secure the information that was now lacking, such as how much density the properties could contain. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman did not think the council had used the term “density” in its motion. Mr. Klein said that the council used development intensity at low, medium, and high levels. Ms. Bettman said that when the council gave that direction, it had not been pursuing such a specific property appraisal. She asked if it was necessary to have a range if the City was going to have a definitive appraisal. Mr. Klein interpreted the council’s direction as requesting the value range with the appraiser’s opinion of what the value of the property actually was. The appraiser had to establish the density on the property to do so. He said the council did not legally need that information, but it might want to have it. Ms. Bettman thought it made more sense to have the professional appraisal backed up with the technical information. Ms. Taylor asked if the City had information about the appraisal on which the property owners were paying taxes. Mr. Klein said the tax assessor did not appraise property in the same way as an appraiser. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council could value the property at what it was valued by the County. Mr. Klein said that would not hold up in a court of law, which would be interested in the real market value of the property. Ms. Taylor asked if it made a difference if the council decided the highest and best use for the property was as open space. Mr. Klein said those factors were spelled out in the land use code. It did not matter what the council thought was the best use of the property, and it lacked the authority to say how the property could be used unless it acquired it or changed the code, zoning, or Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). The appraiser must consider the actual zoning and the condition of the property to establish its worth. Ms. Taylor asked if it was too late to rezone the property. Mr. Klein said the council would have to follow the established process for rezoning. The appraiser would look at current conditions. If a rezoning did occur, it must be consistent with the Metro Plan, so a Metro Plan amendment might be required. If the council attempted to rezone the property, he speculated that the property owner would submit another development application and, under State law, any application made before the rezoning would be governed by the criteria in place at the time of the application. Ms. Taylor asked if the amount paid for the property had an impact on the appraisal. Mr. Klein said that it was one thing that the appraiser would look at, and the appraiser was provided with that information. When the appraiser met the council, he would share his information about the appraisal and the council could ask that question then. Ms. Taylor determined from Mr. Klein that all the information provided in the land use process had been provided to the appraiser. Ms. Taylor asked if information about slides that happened elsewhere had been MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 4 Work Session provided to the geotechnical engineer. Mr. Klein said that to the extent the engineer thought that relevant, they would consider it. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if the geotechnical engineer hired by the City disagreed with the engineer hired by those supporting condemnation of the property. Mr. Klein said the appraiser would rely on information from the geotechnical engineer hired by the City. Part of the reason the drilling was necessary was because there were gaps in what all the experts did. That was why the Planning Commission concluded there was a lack of information to approve a development application. Ms. Taylor asked if the appraisal process would be different if the council voted for condemnation now. Mr. Klein said no. The first step after that decision was to secure an appraisal to back up any offer the City made for the properties. Ms. Taylor said she had requested a motion that stated the council would act no later than December 10, but Ms. Jones had assured her the motion was not necessary and the council would be able to act by that date. Mr. Clark asked how many Oregon municipalities had used condemnation since the passage of Ballot Measure 39. Mr. Klein did not know, but he believed that governments had continued to use condemnation. He said he could provide that information only after further research. Mr. Clark said his understanding of the measure was that it made it more difficult for cities to succeed with condemnation. Mr. Klein agreed. He said that whatever the City’s first offer was, if at a trial a jury decided that the property was worth one penny more than the City’s offer, the City must pay all attorney fees for the property owners. In this case, he anticipated those costs could be considerable. Mr. Clark suggested that it was to the City’s benefit to negotiate a deal with the property owner. Mr. Klein agreed. He said the City had acquired hundreds of acres of property in the past but had only resorted to condemnation a very few times. It was very rare that the City was not able to work out something with the property owner. Mr. Corey said that on occasion, the City would seek the power for the purpose of negotiations. Mr. Clark noted his request to staff for a motion containing text that held the money in the budget for the Santa Clara community park harmless and asked when he should make that proposal. He wanted to be clear that the moneys intended for the park were used for that purpose. Ms. Jones believed Mr. Clark could make that motion at any time. Mr. Klein said that it would be very unusual to add such text to an ordinance authorizing condemnation because of the different nature of the actions involved. The council could not add the text to the ordinance regarding condemnation because it had already been the subject of a public hearing. Mr. Clark requested that staff provide him with direction on the best procedure for directing those funds. Mr. Clark agreed that the City should protect places that needed protection, and he thought the area in question was beautiful and many people favored protecting it. He asked how the City could lack standards that protected such a property if so many people favored its protection, and asked if the City created such standards, what other types of property they would apply to. Mr. Corey said it was difficult to speculate on what the protection of this property would mean on a citywide basis. He said he would consider the first part of the question. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka said he had always favored negotiating with willing sellers and the use of condemnation as a last resort. He asked who would conduct the drilling, and when. Mr. Klein said his office had that information. He said that one of the difficulties with the process was that what he said in public session was known by the property owners, and the more he said, the more disadvantaged the City would be in its negotiations. He said he could provide a confidential memorandum providing more detail. Mr. Zelenka asked if appraisals “went stale.” Mr. Klein said yes. The time that took depended on the appraiser one spoke to. The City’s appraiser indicated there was no need for concern about that in this case, given that the council planned to take action in December. Mr. Zelenka said his inclusion in the text about low, medium, and high levels of development intensity was intended to provide the council with a range that might be considered by the jury as representative of the value of the property. Mr. Zelenka asked why the council was not provided with information about the limit regarding what was available from the parks bond measure. Mr. Klein said that bond counsel indicated the answer was complicated, and they recommended that the council wait to see if it really needed it. The council could not use it all, but there was a substantial amount, about $7 to $8 million, that could be used to buy the property. Mr. Zelenka asked when the council would receive information about what other sources of funds might be available to purchase the property. City Manager pro tem Jones said staff would provide that information to the council. Mr. Zelenka repeated Ms. Taylor’s question about whether the time line gave the council sufficient time to act. City Manager pro tem Jones said yes, staff could schedule the item, but the question was whether the council would have sufficient information to act upon at that time. It was staff’s goal to have that information to the council in the time frame proposed. If the information was not available then, it would be rescheduled for the first available meeting date, and she would inform the council of that fact. Mayor Piercy recalled a condemnation action in Springfield that involved no controversy, and suggested that staff check into how that occurred. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Klein said staff would get any Lidar information provided by the neighborhood group to the geotechnical engineer. Mayor Piercy asked about the potential of separating action on the two properties. Mr. Klein did not think there was a problem with creating two different ordinances, noting there was a potential that the appraisals could result in different council actions. That did not have to involve more public hearings given that it would merely be a division of the motion and ordinance Mayor Piercy asked if the City could back out of a condemnation process once it had begun. Mr. Klein said yes, but the council would have to pay the property owners’ attorneys fees. Mr. Poling asked if the appraisal would involve consideration of appraisals done on other properties in the area. Mr. Klein indicated that information was considered private information. Mr. Poling asked if the council could have that information. Mr. Klein said he would attempt to secure it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Poling asked if one appraiser was doing both appraisals. Mr. Klein said that a firm was involved; the principle appraiser was doing both appraisals with assistance from other members of his firm. Mr. Clark recalled he had also asked staff about the property owners’ investment in attempting to comply with the City’s land use laws. He asked if that information could be provided by the time the council received the appraisal. Mr. Corey said that it was difficult to answer the question. He said the City could provide information about the cost of going through City processes, but he could not provide information about the private costs the property owners incurred. Mr. Clark asked if the City could ask the property owners the information and if there was a reason not to. Mr. Corey thought the City could ask for the information of interest to Mr. Clark but he doubted the property owners would provide it. Mr. Clark asked about the numbers mentioned at the public hearing. Mr. Corey said the City had no way of confirming the accuracy of the information. Mr. Clark asked if Lidar was an established science for establishing where to build houses. Mr. Klein said the geotechnical engineering analysis was established and the commission found it lacking in information. Having geotechnical information was a requirement of the code for such an application. He did not know about Lidar and said he could ask the City’s geotechnical expert the question. He said the expert must be prepared to get on the witness stand and testify as to his professional opinion, taking into account the information about Lidar. Mr. Clark said that the neighborhood group suggested that Lidar was a more advanced way to understand the geology of the area, and if that was the case, it seemed like a good idea. However, he wanted to know more about the science involved. Mr. Klein repeated that the City was relying on the experts it had retained. Mr. Clark asked if the City’s experts recommended such research. Mr. Klein did not know. He said that staff could provide that information to the council. Mr. Clark said if what the City was being told was true about the instability of the soils, he was concerned about what other undeveloped residential lands in the south hills might exist with unsafe slopes. Mayor Piercy said if the council was to separate the two issues, she questioned the best time to do that. Mr. Klein said it would be useful to have that direction prior to December 10. Ms. Bettman suggested the council make the decision about separating the items at the executive session that would occur before December 10. C. WORK SESSION: MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION The council was joined for the item by Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman. Mr. Weinman provided the staff report, reporting that the program was established to encourage housing in the core area and was enabled by State statute. It impacted feasibility, location, and quality by providing incentives for financing, setting a boundary for eligibility, and by requiring applicants to address quality standards. Sixteen applications had been approved since 1978. The statutes had changed over time and had been expanded to include condominiums and transit corridors. He invited questions. Mayor Piercy solicited comments from the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman said she learned there were two other expansions the council had processed, one an expansion th in anticipation of a co-housing project and one that encompassed the Tate project at 13 and Olive. She had not meant to exclude those from the boundaries she would propose. She clarified the number of units that received the tax exemption with Mr. Weinman. Mr. Weinman called attention to the listing of projects. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the council’s receipt of information about the characteris- tics of MUPTE applicants, Mr. Weinman said that the information was included at the request of Mr. Zelenka. Ms. Bettman questioned whether the information was relevant to the decision given the application criteria did not address the characteristics. Mr. Clark said he had done some research into the issue and had learned that there were two different kinds of housing being built in the area in concern, and the type that was supported by the MUFTE were more traditional type of apartment complexes that could serve both students and low-income residents. Those without MUPTE support were generally market-rate housing and were profitable. The City was experienc- ing a surge of construction of apartment units that were five and six bedroom units aimed at students because the City’s parking requirements stipulated only one space per unit, which made them more affordable and profitable. It was becoming less affordable to build standard one- and two-bedroom units, which needed MUPTE support. Mr. Weinman indicated the City was also receiving MUPTE applications for units with more bedrooms. He could not say there was any consistency in bedroom numbers. Mr. Clark said that someone suggested to him that in the absence of the MUPTE, the five- and six-bedroom units would continue to predominate and the result would be student housing with parking crammed along the street. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Weinman said he would characterize Mr. Clark’s remarks as accurate. Ms. Ortiz thought the idea of encouraging growth in certain areas was ‘okay’ with her. She agreed that some of the units might not be as nice in the absence of the MUPTE. However, her challenge was that she did not see much building going on in her neighborhood or other areas not covered by the MUPTE. The infill that had occurred in her area was not attractive. She looked forward to seeing Ms. Bettman’s recommendations because she thought the City was “bringing coals to Newcastle” with the MUPTE. It was not as though the properties were not valuable or would not be developed; the question was how much input into the quality and design the City would have. Ms. Taylor asked the original purpose of the exemption. Mr. Weinman said it was to encourage housing in the core area and support a compact urban growth form and encourage redevelopment in the core. Ms. Taylor said it was supposed to be a benefit for the city, not the developers. Mr. Weinman agreed. He reiterated it was to encourage development in the core. Ms. Taylor believed that when the City changed the boundaries of the exemption area it had changed the purpose of the program. If someone wanted to build something good, they did not have to pay taxes for ten years whether it benefited the City or not, during which time the value of the property decreased before the property owners paid taxes. It did not seem fair to her, and it did not seem to benefit the City but rather developers Mr. Weinman said the current area was slightly smaller than the area established in 1986. The boundaries were last changed in 2004. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Solomon believed the program was a powerful one and recalled that when the MUPTE was revised the City had added local standards. She pointed out the City had control over the process. The developer could chose from a variety of amenities to get them through the door. She did not think the City was a victim in this case. Speaking to the issue of taxes, Ms. Solomon asked the viewing audience to understand that MUPTE applicants still paid taxes; they did not pay taxes on the increase in the value of the property for ten years. She recalled that staff had produced a chart illustrating what the properties receiving the MUPTE paid before the exemption and after the exemption, and said that information would be good to have again. Mr. Pryor recalled the council’s work session on downtown development and the information it received about the fact that partnerships between developers and government produced a better product or outcome; that might be better for the developer but it was also better for the community and those who would be living in the facility. He said his perspective was that the MUPTE was one of the “tools in the tool belt” that allowed developers to build better proposals. Mr. Weinman concurred with Mr. Pryor’s assessment. Mr. Pryor thought the MUPTE was a demonstration of how partnerships produce better outcomes for the community as a whole. He suggested that if similar developments were not happening in other parts of town, perhaps the tool could be extended to those areas. He suggested the City could create “little MUPTE- ettes.” Mayor Piercy thought the City was still trying to provide incentives to construction in the urban core but some considered the boundaries broader than others. She recalled that at one time the council had discussed the goal of more housing for students, and said if that was no longer needed, the question was whether to shrink the zone and the boundaries. While it could be applied somewhere else, perhaps the tool would have done its job in the area in question. Mr. Weinman said in his opinion, it was more expensive to do infill development. The City might get some inexpensive construction similar to that already done in past years in the West University Neighborhood. He pointed out the council changed the guidelines in 2004 to encourage higher quality development, and the applications that had been received since that time were of higher quality development than other projects built in the West University Neighborhood. Infill development often did not occur in general because the investment did not pencil out. Mayor Piercy asked about making MUPTE available everywhere to “incent” desirable infill. Mr. Weinman said that the City could do that in areas zoned for medium- or high-density development. The boundary was selected at one time because it was downtown and zoned for medium- and high-density development, where the City had a goal for more housing, and included adjacent higher density zoned areas. Mayor Piercy noted the list of qualities the City was trying to encourage, and asked Mr. Weinman if there were things that he thought were missing in terms of what the City was trying to achieve. Mr. Weinman suggested that was a council policy discussion. Mayor Piercy thought staff could suggest ideas to the council. Mr. Weinman recalled considerable council discussion in 2004, when some councilors wanted the quality standards to be stricter and more objective in nature. The council at that time decided to list the standards, ask developers to respond to them, and then decide whether the application met the test on a case- by-case basis. Ms. Bettman recalled the discussion mentioned by Mr. Weinman and said the public benefits mentioned included no benchmarks or weighting, and the council eliminated the weighting for low-income. She further pointed out that the definition of low-income before the council was higher than the definition of affordable housing as defined by the State. Ms. Bettman said she supported the application of the MUPTE in the urban core and to the places it was extended in 2004 because she acknowledged there was an economic disadvantage to building housing in the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 9 Work Session downtown core. However, she believed the housing around the West University Neighborhood was predominantly student housing with a transitory student population and the associated challenges that population brought. Those challenges created by the student housing placed a heavier burden on the City and at the same time the City was forgoing the taxes from those developments. The last MUPTE applica- tion the City processed in that area resulted in the existing improvements on the property being demolished, and the City lost the tax value outside the land value. Ms. Bettman agreed that if one was trying to leverage higher quality construction, it was not fair to focus on the downtown alone. She disagreed that there was no infill happening, as there was plenty happening, and the biggest complaint she heard was about quality. She suggested that the City focus on where development would not occur without assistance, which was downtown. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back for a public hearing a revised ordinance amending the MUPTE plan boundary consistent with the Downtown Plan boundary that was in place before the West University Neighborhood ex- th pansion, but including the amendments for 13 and Olive and the co-housing project. Mr. Zelenka said that his research indicated that the MUPTE tool was not used as much as he had thought. There had been numerous housing projects in the West University Neighborhood that were built without the benefit of the MUPTE. He thought a focus on the urban core seemed much more critical given that no housing project occurred in downtown in the last 20 years without a subsidy. However, when considering a boundary shift, he did not think the ‘big guys’ needed the exemption, but the most recent examples of the 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 10 Work Session 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. Mr. Zelenka pointed out to Mr. Pryor said the vast majority of multi-family developments were in the West University Neighborhood, and 11 of 14 developments had not received the MUPTE but had still been built since 2004. When he drove around the neighborhood he saw a lot of development underway that was occurring without the MUPTE. He said “one of them was big.” For that reason, he would support the motion. Mayor Piercy suggested that the question might be whether there was a net gain for the community in terms of the quality of buildings constructed in the urban core. Ms. Bettman said if the City wanted higher quality building, it would want it all over the community. She said that was a code issue and required design standards. It made no sense to pay people to build “prettier projects” or forgive them their taxes for that reason. Ms. Bettman asked for information about the standards the City had in place for quality. What were the demonstrable differences between the qualities that the City received with the public benefits listed and how were those benefits weighed? Mr. Weinman was unsure that staff would be able to do so but indicated it would try. Ms. Bettman suggested that staff examine the last three applications. Mr. Weinman pointed out that staff did not weigh that information but provided it to the council for evaluation. Ms. Bettman said the characteristics she saw looked similar to those she saw being built in her neighborhood, and she questioned why they necessarily were considered higher quality. Mr. Clark was also concerned that the City had appropriate development and that it did not create a burden on public safety or rental housing enforcement. He wanted to motivate quality development and minimize conflicts with neighbors. He thought that it would be useful to have information about UO enrollment MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 11 Work Session projections for the next ten years. He said that students would need someplace to live and they would have an impact on the market. Mr. Weinman said he would attempt to secure that information, but indicated that it was his understanding the UO was not projecting high enrollment increases. Ms. Taylor thought the boundaries should be reduced and the benefit of building in the core recognized by the MUPTE. She did not think the City needed to subsidize the demand for housing for University students. Ms. Taylor wanted to know what the City would receive from Broadway Place when it went on the tax rolls. Mr. Pryor said he added up the MUPTE housing units in the WUN and compared them to the others, and the 103 housing units were built with MUPTE, but 90 units were built without MUPTE. The other non- MUPTE projects were generally smaller. Mr. Zelenka asked what the City received for its public dollars. He liked the standards but they had no benchmarks to allow the council to measure what it was attempting to achieve. Mr. Weinman said the council’s evaluation of the information provided by applicants was purely subjective. Mr. Zelenka said that there were scoring mechanisms to get at that information, and he had no way to do so. He did not think the process allowed for that because the City could not quantify what it was buying. He asked how the City would know something would not be built without MUPTE. Mr. Weinman said that financing was part of the equation. Staff looked at and analyzed the pro formas to determine if they could be financed under lending requirements and based its recommendation on that analysis. Lenders wanted a certain cash flow from projects. Mr. Zelenka requested that staff provide the council with options on making the local standards less subjective and more objective, and asked for more detail about how the City knew when projects would not be built without MUPTE. Mayor Piercy said that one could forgive taxes or pay taxes to achieve a purpose. She said if she was to vote, she would prefer to vote on shrinking the district after the council received more information. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Ze- lenka voting yes; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pyror, and Mr. Clark voting no; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 12 Work Session