Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/1982 Meeting . ( M I NUT E S - Eugene City Council City Council Chamber July 28, 1982 11:45 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Ball, D. W. Hamel, Mark Lindberg, Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Letter from the Mayor of Kakegawa Mayor Keller requested that staff distribute copies of a letter from the Mayor of Kakegawa regarding the fifth anniversary of the sister city program. B. Appointments Mr. Gleason said the Mayor had some appointments in regard to the Financial e Planning Committee. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to appoint Councilors Lindberg, Obie, Schue, and Smith and Mayor Keller as members of the Financial Planning Committee. Motion carried unanimously. C. Announcements 1- Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan Consensus of the council was to reschedule today's work session on the Bethel- Danebo Refinement Plan update to August 11, 1982. The public hearing on the update will be rescheduled to September 13, 1982. 2. Downtown Commercial and Housing Rehabilitation Loan Programs Mayor Keller said goal 2 of the City's economic diversification program is and has been core area redevelopment including central housing rehabilitation and core area commercial revitalization. Dollars to implement the two parts of this goal exist through the City's annual budgeting of the Community Development Block Grant and from HUD in the early financial statement made by HUD in 1976 to the City to complete the c~ntral Eugene project. Since these funds are limited, $200,000 and $700,000 respectively, the key point in making the program effective has been the additional private dollars leveraged into these program. The City's Lenders' Task Force, a committee of lenders with representation from the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 Page 1 , ~ 1 council, chaired by Henry Langhaim of Equitable Savings & Loan, and its rehabili- - tat ion subcommittee, chaired by Sharon Matson of First Interstate Bank, deserve a lot of credit. They should share in that credit for working with the City staff to develop the leveraging component of these programs and for obtaining the participation of other lenders. He introduced Bob Thomas. Mr. Thomas said goal 1 is the preservation of the city's housing stock. The program expects in the first year to significantly extend the life of 50 homes within the central neighborhood areas. Goal 2 is general neighborhood revitali- zation which is the returning of people's confidence to the inner city neighbor- hoods as good places for permanent residence. Goal 3 is a practical one, keeping the City's rehabilitation program eligible for the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds. That goal was obtained by targeting the inner city neighborhoods, which is totally consistent with the economic diversification goal. Goal 4 is leveraging the limited public funds in order to get greater impact from the public dollar. This means 50 instead of 20 houses will be affected. Having lender participation is a very important and healthy part of the program as it relates to community economic growth. The regional industrial multiplier that is developed by the Department of Commerce looks at dollars put into the local economy through the construction industry as being respent or recycled 2.8 times per year. If the 2.8 factor is applied to the $500,000 that is expected to be leveraged into the program, there is a much bigger economic impact: $1.4 million for the next year through the residential rehabilitation program. The other program that HCC has implemented is the commercial rehabilitation program. He introduced jesse Smith. Mr. Smith discussed three features of the commercial loan program. The first - feature is the leveraging ratio and how it works. The City has put aside $700,000 from the early financial settlement dollars. This is expected to leverage approximately $2.8 million from private lending institutions over the course of a two-year period. For everyone dollar that the City invests in the commercial loan program, an additional four dollars will be produced from private lending institutions. The way that ratio works is by offering borrowers two loans~ the first from a private lending institution at market rate and the second from the City at a zero interest rate. Both loans will be repaid and the effect will be to reduce the rate to the borrower by six percentage points. The second feature is the public/private partnership. The City worked with the Lenders' Task Force since January designing the program. It is designed to provide incentives for both borrower and lender. The lender is working with a set of policies and procedures for that institution. It is important to work within the confines of those policies and procedures. There are a number of lending institutions involved, and it is important to have the City's goals and the private loan institutions' policies meshed together. The third feature is meeting in part, the City's goals for downtown redevelopment and the renewal agency's goals and objectives for downtown redevelopment. In particular those are to decrease core area blight and to increase retail activities, and to assist in private development in downtown as it takes place. Henry Langhaim, chairperson of the Lenders' Task Force, said the Lenders' Task Force has had a great opportunity in working with City employees and the HCC Department in getting this program together. The institutions involved have e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 Page 2 , : heen growing day by day. They are American Federal, Citizen Savings, Equitable e Savings, Far West Savings, First Interstate, Home Federal, Oregon Bank, Oregon Mutual & Savings, Pacific Continental, Pacific First Federal, Pacific Western, and US National. This shows a real emphasis and a positive note by the financial institutions in the economy in Eugene and Lane County. He has been working with the City of Eugene on another lending project. He said the City has worked very well with him in taking care of some problems. He sa i d it's been a positive experience to work with the City of Eugene and its employees. Mayor Keller thanked all of the participants. He introduced Bob Grieve from the Oregon Bank, Jeff Pickles from Pacwest, and Gary Crabtree from Pacific First Federal. Another of the City Council goals is to make things easy. Less than a year ago, City Council adopted a six-point program that puts a concrete program in place with implementation of goal 2, with public dollars behind it as well as the solid participation of the private sector. The two programs, with expected expenditures of public funds of $433,000 in the first year, are designed to leverage an additional $1,270,000 in that same year for a total of $1.7 million. He thanked the staff for working hard and congratulated the public sector and the private sector "for proving again that we can work together and when we do we always come up with the best program in the world." 3. Impact of the County Budgeting Program and Intergovernmental Relations Mr. Gleason introduced Gary Long. Mr. Long said a staff memorandum outlined e three areas on a report on the overall County budget, its status, the funding of specific intergovernmental service programs, and the question about the County's continued membership and voting status. This discussion may pertain to some other jurisdictions if they withdraw financially from existing intergovernmental agreement s. First, the County budget is not finalized and it will not be for several weeks. It appears that until the special election is held on August 10, no final action will be taken by the County on its overall service program. The special levy is focused on law enforcement, specifically with $2.1 million to go to public safety. The district attorney's office will receive almost $500,000 and $100,000 will go to the Juvenile Department. Staff comment about the levy is that it is difficult to predict the public's reaction to the levy. Such a levy has not been tried before. The levy impacts incorporated versus unincorpor- ated residents makes the outcome of the levy difficult to predict. The district attorney and the Juvenile Department services would benefit City residents, but they only make up 20 percent of the total levy. The remaining 80 percent would benefit county residents and would go exclusively to the Sheriff's Office. There may be more things that impact the City_ There has been some discussion about park closure and some other items at the staff level, but there is nothing concrete at this time. Mr. Long said that on intergovernmental service programs, the County is on hold on this matter as well. There has been some discussion by their intergovernmental committee and a general conclusion or recommendation to the Budget Committee that approximately $150,000 be reserved to fund the various intergovernmental, agencies such as LRAPA and L-COG. Across the board that equates to about a 40- - percent level of funding relative to this past budget year. It is quite a MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 Page 3 ; significant drop. The County has allocated Federal CSA funds to participate in e the joint social service program and has put $63,000 into special service contracts. With respect to the membership status and voting privileges, a question that has been raised by councilors, each of the intergovernmental agencies has somewhat different legal arrangements and yet all of them seem to have a common thread of flexibility that would permit a policy board to draw up some kind of policy allowing for temporary participation in light of financial problems. An agency which is having difficulty either paying the full amount or any amount could continue to participate in the agency policy boara and then return to full financial and voting participation when they could financially afford it. Staff recommendaiton is that the City work along those lines. These agencies are of direct benefit to all and it would not be in the City's interest or in the general interest of all the partners to have these agencies fall apart or have a limited participation. Staff is available to work with each of the councilors who have certain assignments with these agencies and will try to develop specific strategies around the peculiarities of the voting provisions in the intergovernmental agency agreements. Councilor Schue thanked staff for the comments. She said they had been especially helpful because she has some responsibility for both L-COG and LRAPA which are involved. She expressed hope that the City would continue to talk with the County and that City departments and staff would discuss the long-term funding implications of the City-County relationship. This past spring the County expressed some interest in the fact that these discrepancies did exist and this may not be the time to solve them. Councilor Wooten agreed that it is in the best interest of city residents to e have cooperation and participation by the County in multiple-jurisdiction agencies. At the same time, over a period of time it may be unfair to the taxpayers of the city of Eugene to continue to have the County be a full voting member in intergovernmental groups without paying their fair share of the costs of that organization. She expressed an assertive request to provide some kind of equitable exchange. She asked at what point talks with the City would be initiated. Mayor Keller responded that the general sense about meetings at this point is that it would probably not be extremely successful to continue until after the election. If the levy succeeds, he would hope that a preliminary discussion by the three boards could be held. There might be a slight delay as the County puts together the programs that they would be putting into place, which might delay a meeting. After so many years of concentrated effort on behalf of all the agencies and primarily by the City, it is difficult to have to step back. It appeared that for the first time perhaps in the history of those negotiations that something was about to happen. The City can certainly be sensitive to the idea that the anticipated revenues have shrunk. Having 80 percent of the revenues go to county residents versus 20 percent going to the City is a diffi- cult posture because the City recognizes the County's financial crisis. Whether the County levy fails or passes, the key message that must be shared is that the voters have to take a good hard look at benefits derived. Councilor Wooten added that regardless of whether the County levy fails or passes, a resolution to the problem of double taxation must be pursued. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 P~e4 i ; . Councilor Hamel said he concurred with Councilors Schue and Wooten, but his real e concern is that if the County is not going to contribute its fair share to the Metropolitan Cable Commission for the upkeep of that commission, they should not be entitled to receive three percent from Group W. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Payment of Bills and Claims (listing distributed) Res. No. 3701--A resolution authorizing the payment of bills and claims for the period July 21, 1982, through July 28, 1982. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Finance Resolutions (memo, ordinance distributed) Mr. Gleason said in June a certain amount of money is set aside and then the bills in payment come in for July and payment is made from this reserve account. The first resolution, 3702, allocates the money from that reserve account to those claims that were paid in the year ending, and the second resolution, 3703, takes the remainder of that reserve account, which is about $100,000, and puts it back into the beginning cash balance of this year. It is an accounting requirement. e Res. No. 3702--A resolution authorizing the transfer of funds from the Reserve for Encumbrances to departments. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. , Res. No. 3703--A resolution authorizing the of the balance of the Reserve for Encumbrances to Reserves, Contingency, and Balance Available. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. . C. Technical Code Amendment (CA 82-7) (memo, ordinance attached ) Mr. Gleason said when the findings and requirements were revised before the Planning Commission, those findings that are necessary for the City Council were omitted. This amendment would make the ordinance consistent between the two bodies. Staff recommends that City Council approve the council bill. CB 2506--An ordinance concerning council action on changes in zoning districts and district regulations; amending Section 9.682 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 Page 5 ~ . Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be read the e second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED SPAY/NEUTER RATE INCREASE (memo distributed) Councilor Lindberg said a slight increase in proposed in vaccination rates at the City of Eugene's Spay Neuter Clinic. Due to the severe downturn in the economy, business has been down at the Spay Neuter Clinic. Business has actually been down in the entire veterinary community. Some adjustments are necessary to make the spay neuter service pay for itself. One reason for the drastic drop in revenue is that there are fewer adoptions of pets this year compared to prior years. Mr. Lindberg said Dr. Ann Samsel 1 , the Spay Neuter Clinic veterinarian, Finance, and himself had considered a number of options and considered this increase in the vaccination rate to be the most painless of the options. It would continue the incentive that is created by having a low-cost spay neuter clinic and at the same time would not be such an overwhelming price increase that it creates problems. There are a number of other efforts that are being made to improve business at the Spay Neuter Clinic. The long-range picture is optimistic, but a rate adjustment is needed to address the current financial state. e Public hearing was opened. Sandra Neal, 2555 Gateway #8, said the rate increase in the Spay Neuter Clinic is uneconomical in a lot of regards. The economy at this time is bad and people cannot afford to adopt pets. If the prices are raised, people will not be able to afford the shots. If those prices are increased, animals will go without and people will have a tendency to turn those animals loose. They won't be able to care for them the way they should, and this can increase illness and health hazards. Those animals will be running around loose on the street; children and other animals can get sick from those. If prices could be lowered by 25 cents or 50 cents, the volume that go to the Spay Neuter Clinic would increase, and maybe that could take care of the deficit that the City Council is worried abo ut . With the economy the way it is, people cannot afford anything that takes too much money, and with the prices increased, they will be the same as the veterinarians in the area. If that is the case, people won't take the time to go out to the Spay Neuter Clinic, which is low-cost, and they will just go straight to their veterinarian. The volume will go down at the Spay Neuter Clinic. Dogs are coming down with more and more diseases. If people can't afford the shots, these diseases can become epidemic and be transferred to children and other animals. She said the whole thing is a health hazard if people can't afford to give their animals the kindness of shots. If the prices are raised, that kindness can become too expensive for most people. The Spay Neuter Clinic is supposed to be low-cost. It is for people who do not have the money to afford veterinarians. When the prices go up to be comparable with those veterinarians, she asked what the point was. Prices should stay lower for e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 Page 6 . . . people who cannot afford to have veterinarians take care of their animals. That e way the animals would stay healthy and the children would stay healthy. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Councilor Hamel said he would prefer to turn the spay neuter business back to the veterinarians and turn over the clinic and that sort of thing on a leased basis to the Humane Society and get it out of the City budget. Councilor Lindberg said he shares the concerns of the person who testified on behalf of the animals. He said he and staff had considered these options very carefully and share completely the policy objectives of public health, safety, and protection of animals that the speaker presented. If this service cannot be provided on a break-even basis, the council may in the future need to consider its own policies in terms of whether this is an enterprise that should be subsidized out of the general fund. An effort is being made to improve the clinic's relationship with the veterinary community. Councilor Schue said the position of the council is that this is a service that will be provided if it pays its own way. That was the understanding when it was set up. In order to continue that objective, it is obvious that there .have to be some adjustments. It may be that in the future this is a service that is worthy of some tax dollar subsidization. That is not an issue to decide right now, but to operate this program at the present time demands a price increase to cover the cost. Councilor Ball asked if the possibility of dropping the rate and expecting a e higher volume of low-income vaccination requests had been considered. Dr. Ann Samsell, veterinarian at the Spay Neuter Clinic, said she had been at the Spay Neuter Clinic six months and the clinic had been under some turmoil in the last year. A $3,300 deficit was incurred this year. Running a business is a gamble in this day and time. She said an estimate of expenditures is about $129,000, and if that is true there will be a deficit next year. If prices were raised according to the resolution, the proposed expenditures could be met. If the volume goes down because of raised prices, the proposed expenditures would not be met. The Spay Neuter Clinic's only drawing card is that prices are lower. No other services are offered, so if prices are raised and business drops enough, money would be lost. She said she would prefer not to see as much of a raise as from $4.75 to $6; maybe just to $5. Even $6 a vaccination is still quite a bit less than the local veterinarians charge. Mayor Keller said the key issue could be to follow closely the progress on a monthly basis and if that curve seems to have tendency to want to drop off, that would be an indication to reconsider. Councilor Lindberg said the most important priority is the policy objective, and it is watched on a month-to-month basis. A market analysis will identify who is being reached and if the incentives are working. He said as market research is done, he hoped the Spay Neuter Clinic would touch those who not only may be low-income but, most importantly, are the owners of unlicensed dogs or are irresponsible and do not have their own pets neutered and vaccinated. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 Page 7 . Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the spay/neuter e rate increase as proposed in memo dated July 9, 1982, from Councilor Lindberg. . Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Councilor Ball said he had information on a transient Pet Prevent-a-Care business that conducted veterinary medicine in a shopping center parking lot for an afternoon. Councilor Lindberg said Dave Whitlow and he had been working on the issue. There is an ordinance that disallows a business to conduct itself out of a trailer or a van. Because there are not enough enforcement personnel to have routine inspections, they operate on a complaint basis only. IV. NAMING OF PERFORMING ARTS COMPLEX (Memo Distributed) Councilor Wooten said she wanted the citizens of the city of Eugene to understand the council's appreciation of their suggestions, all of them. While the council has more weighty things to deliberate, this had been fun and it had engendered a lot of participation on the part of the public. Every single name that had come to council is appreciated. Ms. Wooten said she hoped that everyone can use the two square blocks in downtown Eugene fully, whatever its name will be. Councilor Smith said Ms. Wooten's comments are appropriate. The input from the public and the four- or five-page listing of names certainly indicated a great deal of interest and she hoped that all those people who submitted a name will, if they have not done so already, send in their ticket applications and partici- pate in whatever the two square blocks are called. e The ballots were submitted as follows: Mayor Keller--Eugene Commons Councilor Ball--Eugene Commons Councilor Smith--Eugene Performing Arts Center Councilor Miller--Eugene Center Councilor Lindberg--Eugene Center Councilor Schue--Eugene Center Councilor Hamel--Eugene Centre Councilor Obie--Eugene Centre Councilor Wooten--Eugene Centre Dick Reynolds tabulated the votes. He indicated the Eugene Performing Arts Center received one vote, Eugene Commons received two votes, Eugene Center with an "er," three votes, and Eugene Centre with an "re," three votes. Mr. Reynolds said he assumed lire" could be accepted. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt Eugene Centre as the official name for this two-block area with three buildings. Councilor Miller and Councilor Lindberg did not support the "re" spelling. Councilor Lindberg said the only reason he voted for Eugene Center was that it was a simple name. He chose to retract his vote because the name had been embellished. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 Page 8 Roll call vote; motion carried 5:3, with Councilors Ball, Hamel, e Obie, Smith, and Wooten voting in favor, and Councilors Lindberg, Schue, and Miller voting in opposition. Councilor Wooten said the reason she voted for the "re" spelling was to make it distinctive from the conference center or the performing arts center itself. v. DOWNTOWN HOUSING POLICY RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE LELAND-HOBSON STUDY (memo, resolution, background information distributed) Recommended approvel by Planning Commission July 12, 1982 Vote: 5:0 Mr. Hibschman said the study began in the spring of last year in response to adopted policy which indicated a need to develop an implementation strategy for downtown housing. The Leland-Hobson study was specifically designed to address what kind of housing should be put in the downtown area, where it should go, and how to do it. It was originally intended to become a short-term implementation strategy. The study ended in August of 1981 and was circulated to a number of City boards and commissions for review, as well as to lenders, developers, and particularly those who participated in the study process. The resolution is the result of some of the more significant findings of the Leland-Hobson study and comments that were received during that review process. The resolution was submitted for review twice to the Joint Housing Committee and twice to the Planning Commission. In the course of those discussions there were some concerns on the part of the Joint Housing Committee that some provision be made to include some below-market-rate units. This was discussed before the e Planning Commission and it was felt that, given the difficulty of downtown housing, the full array of tools that are outlined in the resolution should be made available and those options kept open. There is recognition that the two more significant tools, the land cost write-down and the below-interest loan tools, would be cause for public review. Any additional public benefit that might want to be included as part of those tools could be used during that review process, primarily on a case-by-case basis. This resolution is to be considered more a long-term planning document than a short-term implementation strategy. Staff strongly supports it. It will provide a clear direction for downtown housing in the future. An important sidelight of the study was its educational value. During the course of the study it was necessary to bring the lenders and developers and staff together to discuss downtown housing issues and to look at the kind of projects that lenders would most likely want to see developers bring to them for financing. Mr. Hibschman thanked the Lenders' Task Force which provided a forum for those meetings. Those discussions heightened everyone's awareness about downtown housing and how difficult it is. Mayor Keller, with approval of the council, opened the public hearing to allow those who had requested to testify to speak. John Van Landingham, 1172 West 5th Avenue, member of the Joint Housing Committee, sald he was the author of the Joint Housing Committee's proposed amendment to the resolution. That amendment was adopted by the Joint Housing Committee by a 4:1 vote. The Joint Housing Committee wanted to make it City policy to limit e significant subsidies for downtown housing in the form of interest reduction and MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 Page 9 . land write-down to housing developments which include some below-market-rate units. It is not intended that this memo be perceived as anti-development. A e developer who wants to build a market-rate condominium project downtown and can get the permits and meet the City's requirements should certainly be free to do so with no limitations by the City--in fact, with all the encouragement that the City can give to it. There would be no additional obli~ation to a developer who wants to receive City assistance in the form of technical assistance, tax exemptions, site preparation, or infrastructure improvements. Mr. Van Landingham pointed out that in the process of consideration, Gene Bixler, who makes his living as a condominium consultant, emphasized that education of developers and lenders about how to market condominiums and how to set them up was crucial to the success of those kinds of projects. Mr. Van Landingham also emphasized that one of the stated goal s of the "doughnut di strict" study has been to use infra- structure improvements to attract development downtown. If the City is going to provide a significant financial subsidy, in terms of writing down the interest rate or writing down the cost of the land, there should be some significant public benefit in return. In the case of the Hilton Hotel subsidy, there is a public benefit: there are jobs created and those jobs create income which in turn produces tax income. Housing does not create jobs. There will not be a tax increase. In addition, many on the Joint Housing Committee feel that this subsidy does not make good economic sense. The staff has spoken of helping downtown housing compete with other housing. Downtown housing costs more because land downtown costs more. That increase in costs reflects a greater value. When the housing market is ready and when there are financial factors which make downtown housing compete with other housing, for example in density, commuting time, and desirability, the developers will meet that demand with or without any subsidy. The recommendation is not saying that all housing downtown e should be low-income. This amendment would only affect those developments which want significant subsidies of land write-down and interest write-Qown. The amendment is deliberately vague so that the council, at the time that it gives the subsidy, could design it. In an 80-unit project, it could be one low-income unit. Whatever the subsidy is, whatever the requirement in exchange by the City, it should reflect the amount of the subsidy and the kind of project that it is. Finally, the amendment does not conflict with the City's dispersal policy. That policy has an exception for senior, low-income housing and also has an exception for experimental projects. One likely method to raise money to do this kind of subsidy is through the tax-exempt housing revenue bond. The Ullman bill limits those bonds to use for non-market-rate units already. The amendment is consistent with what Congress has moved to. In the Planning Commission consideration, staff pointed out that Federal subsidies to low-income housing may be at an end. That would make subsidized housing more difficult. Subsidized housing provision on a local level would become that much more important and necessary. Robert Bennett, 250 Palomino Drive, said he supports the things that Mr. Van Landingham supports. The downtown situation does not have the basic demand for the kind of housing the Leland-Hobson study might like to suggest as a sort of target development project. In order to make that kind of project go, it would have to be very heavily subsidized. There are a lot of questions. Leland-Hobson looked at that particular site, the one on the west side, as being a site which might be the most attractive, of the sites available, for the market rate develop- e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 Page 10 . . mente Mr. Bennett questioned whether demand would show that site to be the best e site at a time there was sufficient demand to attract downtown housing. To promote a site like that and to promote a new development when the basic demand is not there, and may not be for some time, would take substantial money which might better be used in other areas of housing. The ideal perspective is to have a situation where the basic demand is there and it needs a little bit of a nudge. That kind of help could be dealt with under the types of subsidies that are not considered the major ones. Mr. Bennett said that as a member of the Joint Housing Committee, his sense of it is that he is trying to use whatever expertise he has gained in the development business over the years to give something back to his community. That means trying to create some housing for those deserving people who might not otherwise have a quality place to live. He agreed that downtown housing is very important. He said he had a bit of a problem with a situation of providing substantial subsidies when no consideration is given to those who are the charge of the Joint Housing Committee. Since no other citizens were present to testify, Mayor Keller closed the public hearing. Council President Obie took over the chairing of the meeting. Councilor Schue said as the council representative on the Joint Housing Committee and as a person who was part of the discussion that Mr. Van Landingham and Mr. Bennett reported, she agreed with their conclusions. Pat Decker, Planning, explained the Planning Commission's decision on the recom- mendation, which was not to incorporate the wording change suggested by the Joint e Housing Committee. The concerns that were raised were that in order to make downtown housing in the community work and make it competitive with housing in outlying locations, there were going to have to be some forms of subsidy. The council and the Planning Commission have already established some of those sub- sidies now: exemptions from the systems development tax, and some property tax for improvements on downtown housing. The commission's further thinking was that housing in the downtown area is located near employment centers and is in an area where public services are already available, so in some cases developing housing in the downtown area is less expensive to the community than additional develop- ment on the outlying fringes. Finally, what swayed the Planning Commission the most was that in some cases it may be desirable for tools like land cost write- down be made available to a housing development project, and the commission's feeling was that the council could make the decision at that time whether or not a particular project merited that exceptional kind of public assistance. Councilor Miller agreed with Councilor Schue's statement on the Joint Housing Committee amendment. Councilor Wooten said the goal of housing in downtown Eugene continues to be an essential one. In order to attract that housing some kind of subsidy must be offered. The subsidy is in tax dollars and services and land, and that belongs to everyone. One of the things that will make downtown housing successful for the market is the diversity of people and housing types in the area. All kinds of housing make it a bona fide delight to live in proximity to recreation, employment, and cultural services. For that reason she supported the Joint Housing Committee amendment. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 Page 11 . . Councilor Lindberg said he agreed to a great extent with Councilor Schue's e comments and with those brought forward in the public testimony. The incentives will work when some market pressure exists and a little bit of a nudge is important. If a bigger nudge is offered, then a little bigger benefit should be received. Therefore this kind of two-tiered approach of creating an incentive structure to construct downtown housing on the one hand, and creating a special incentive structure which will provide special benefits for low- and moderate- income people makes logical sense. Councilor Obie said the council goal, relative to diversity of housing, would suggest defeating the Joint Housing Committee recommendation, since it is not appropriate for the community. Combining a desire to create a greater density closer to the core area because of services available, etc., is a public benefit that should not be overlooked. There is a strong desire to maintain a viable downtown. That requires softening some competitive disadvantages. Community goals are best met by the infill objectives and the objectives of a more dense urban development in the downtown area. Councilor Schue said the recommendaiton states there must be some inclusion of low-income housing within the project, which could be one or two units out of 80. It would not necessarily have to be an all-law-income project. Councilor Obie said the problem will not be solved with one unit out of 80 being low-income. Councilor Miller said the amendment states that significant pUblic assistance on the more important subsidies may be made available first in the form of initial one-time incentives. That is a slightly separate issue but it is important because that recognizes that the kind of ongoing Federal subsidies available in the past may no longer be available. The focus should be on using e available funds. The language clearly requires a future City Council to decide how much of a subsidy in return for how much of a public benefit. Councilor Smith said the amendment makes the overall program more restrictive. Res. No. 3704--A resolution concerning the development of downtown housing and supplementing resolutions number 3493 and 3498. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to adopt the resolution and to defer discussions regarding the amendment proposed by the Joint Housing Committee until later. Mr. Lindberg moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to amend the motion to include the amendment in the resolution suggested by the Joint Housing Committee rather than defer discussion on the amendment for a later time. Councilor Lindberg said the amendment does not include most of the public assistance that is offered, including infrastructure improvements, site prep- aration, or technical assistance--it only focuses on low-interest loans and land cost write-downs. Roll call vote on the motion to amend; motion carried 5:3, with Councilors Ball, Lindberg, Miller, Schue, and Wooten voting in favor and Councilors Hamel, Smith, and Obie voting in opposition. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 Page 12 > ~ . Councilor Obie called for a roll call vote on the main motion as amended. e Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Councilor Miller referred to the Planning Commission minutes and a kind of intermediate motion that was proposed within the minutes. She said she hoped that the Planning Commission is trying to tell the council to consider things and is trying to point out key issues for the council, because of they are not, the council is in serious trouble. VI. MODIFICATION OF COUNCIL PROCEDURES ON PAYMENT OF BILLS CB 2507--An ordinance concerning payment of City bills; amending sections 2.525 and 2.527 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. The council agreed to postpone this item to August 11, 1982. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, M:t:~ City Manager e (Recorded "by Lois Enman) MDG:LE:gp/CM23bl - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 Page 13