HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 9-11-19 Work SessionSeptember 11, 2019, Work Session
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 11, 2019
12:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of September 11, 2019;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors Betty Taylor, President Emily Semple, Vice President Mike Clark Greg Evans Chris Pryor Claire Syrett Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka
12:00 p.m. EUGENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
1.WORK SESSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Ferry St. Manor – Application for
Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Mixed-Use Property
2.WORK SESSION: Rivers to Ridges Partnership - Fifteen Years of Accomplishments
September 11, 2019, Work Session
For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 541-682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast later in the week. El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541-682-5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo por Metro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana.
For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541-682-5010 or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gov.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session and Possible Action: Ferry St. Manor – Application for Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Mixed-Use Property Meeting Date: September 11, 2019 Agenda Item: 1 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Amanda D’Souza
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5540
ISSUE STATEMENT City Council is asked to consider the request for a Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption for the Ferry St. Manor project, a proposed multi-unit housing development located at 1040 and 1050 Ferry Street.
BACKGROUND The City received a MUPTE application in March from RNS Management LLC (a local developer entity owned by the Bennett family), for a proposed multi-unit housing development (Ferry St. Manor). The application was deemed complete on April 8, 2019. (A copy of the Ferry St. Manor
MUPTE application is available in the council office and online at www.eugene-or.gov/3281/MUPTE-
Applications)
Program Background MUPTE is an incentive program to encourage high-quality, multi-unit downtown housing especially in areas well served by public transit. Both rental housing and multi-unit housing for home ownership are eligible; student housing is ineligible. Enabled by state law, the program provides a 10-year property tax exemption on qualified new multi-unit housing investments that occur within a specific, targeted area that meet program requirements and that are reviewed and approved by City Council. During the exemption period, property owners still pay taxes on the assessed value of the land and any existing improvements on the property. Council can deem commercial portions of a project to be a public benefit and include them as part of the exemption along with the residential portion. In 2015, after a two-and-a-half-year review, council revised the MUPTE program criteria, process and boundary. See Attachment A for a summary of the program criteria and the process diagram.
Review Panel The 2015 MUPTE update established a Review Panel, tasked with providing a third-party review of individual applications for the City Manager. The Review Panel is made up of two at-large representatives selected by neighborhood association boards, two representatives selected by the board of the neighborhood association in which the proposed project is located, and six technical
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
professionals selected by the City Manager from the following six groups: architects/green building specialists; building trades unions; developers; environmental professionals; public health professionals; and human rights representatives. A list of the Panel members that reviewed the Ferry St. Manor MUPTE application is in Attachment C.
Project Overview Ferry St. Manor is a proposed five-story, $8.2 million multi-unit housing project. The project is about 31,000 square feet divided amongst the five floors and is comprised of 50 residential units (35 studios and 15 one-bedrooms). The property is owned by the applicant, RNS Management, LLC, and the proposed project is located on an existing surface parking lot serving residents of Eugene Manor, an existing multi-unit housing development. See Attachment B for a map of the Ferry St. Manor project site.
Project Required Public Benefits The Review Panel considered the project application, including compliance with program criteria and the independent consultant’s financial review, during three meetings held on May 29, July 10 and July 29. The Review Panel concluded that the project meets the Required Public Benefit criteria. Attachment D contains the Review Panel’s conclusions and recommendation to the City Manager and minority reports from two members. The Report and Recommendation in Attachment E provides a summary of the project and the Required Public Benefits.
General Eligibility. The project is located within the MUPTE boundary. The project is not designed to be student housing, meaning it will be leased by the unit (rather than by individual rooms or beds) and the unit configuration does not include several bedrooms with individual bathrooms and sparse common space or include amenities and location selected primarily for individuals attending college and offer limited viability as potential housing for the general population. Additionally, the project does not designate any of the units for transient use or vacation occupancy.
Compact Urban Development. The project parcel is in the R-4 High Density Residential Zone, which requires at least 20 housing units per acre and a maximum of 112 units per acre. Ferry St. Manor includes 50 dwelling units that would result in a density of 103 units per acre, which is more than 175% of minimum density required by the MUPTE program. Green Building Features. The project will utilize the City of Eugene Building and Permit Services pathway in order to exceed the 10 percent energy efficiency MUPTE required benchmark. If council approves the MUPTE, RNS Management will be required to submit an energy model with the permit application and a commissioning report due 18 months after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued to validate energy performance. Local Economic Impact Plan. RNS Management has a plan for an estimated 67 percent of the project’s dollar volume of professional services and construction contracts to be local to Lane County. Their general contractor is John Hyland Construction. RNS Management will be required to promote open, competitive opportunities for Minority, Women, and Emerging Small Businesses and to comply with wage, tax and licensing laws. RNS Management will a) provide the City with a list of all contractors, b) require that each
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
contractor provide an affidavit attesting to not having any unpaid judgments for construction debt, including unpaid wages, and to being in compliance with Oregon tax laws, c) post information about the City’s Rights Assistance Program in English and Spanish on the job site during construction of the project, and d) after construction, provide a report of the home city or zip code of all the construction labor workers. Moderate-Income Housing Contribution. RNS Management has committed to maintaining a minimum of 30 percent of the units (15) with rents that qualify as moderate-income units during the MUPTE period. (Moderate income is defined in the MUPTE ordinance as affordable to households at 100 percent of the area median income.)
Project Design and Compatibility. The building is being constructed as an infill addition on an existing developed site. The project design is intended to harmonize with the scale, form and quality of onsite and adjacent development. The project meets the design intent of designing for the human scale, appropriate to the local climate and natural resiliency, promote transparency, help define a sense of place, fit the neighborhood, and employ high-quality materials and color.
Historic and Existing Housing Sensitivity. The project site does not have existing housing other than Eugene Manor, which will remain. The site is adjacent to one building that meets the MUPTE definition of “historic locale” (a building that has a historic, cultural and/or architectural significance). The City’s historic preservation staff reviewed the project site and deemed the historic locale is not affected by the Ferry St. Manor redevelopment.
Project Need. Johnson Economics, an independent real estate consultant firm, provided a pro forma evaluation of the project’s viability with a review of assumptions including income, lease rates, operating costs, permanent financing, construction costs and return. (See Attachment F for the analysis.) The consultant concluded that the project proforma used reasonable assumptions, the project would not be viable without the availability of the exemption, and that MUPTE is critical to the success of the project from a financial feasibility perspective. The Review Panel concluded that project need was demonstrated and a majority agreed that a 10-year exemption was warranted. Two members advocated for shorter exemptions, and one member advocated for no exemption.
Tax Impact Ferry St. Manor will generate property tax revenue on the land. The estimated property tax paid will be approximately $3,900 in year one. During the exemption period, the total taxes to be paid on the land would be approximately $45,000. After the exemption period, it is estimated the entire development will generate $113,000 in year 11.
Public Comments A display advertisement was published in The Register-Guard on April 14, 2019, soliciting comments for 30 days. The period ended on May 14, 2019, at 5:00 p.m. All written comments received by staff through August 26 are included as Attachment G. MUPTE requires applicants to contact the relevant neighborhood association to share project information and seek input. The proposed project is located in the West University Neighborhood,
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
which does not have an active neighborhood association. In order to meet this requirement, RNS Management held a meeting on December 18, 2018, to share information on their proposal. Notice of this meeting was provided to all tenants and property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project.
Timing The MUPTE program requires the City Manager to provide council with his recommendation no later than 135 days after the application was deemed complete, which would be by August 21 for the Ferry St. Manor application. The City Manager provided his recommendation via email on August 19. By state statute and code, if council has not acted within 180 days from the application date, the application is deemed approved, which would be October 5, 2019, for the Ferry St. Manor application. If the MUPTE is approved, construction would begin in October with a proposed construction schedule of approximately one year.
The project is currently undergoing an adjustment review to reduce the minimum parking requirements for the development. As part of the adjustment review process, the applicant was required to submit a Transportation Demand Management program. This program describes how the applicant intends to reduce the quantity of required parking spaces by emphasizing active modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycling, and riding the bus. An update on the adjustment review process will be provided at the work session.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION July 13, 2015 Work Session
Council approved the ordinance amending and reinstating the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption program.
COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. Approve the exemption as presented in the resolution in Attachment H. 2. Approve the exemption with amended conditions. 3. Direct the City Manager to bring back a resolution denying the exemption because one or more specified criteria are not met. 4. Take no action at this work session.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Based on the MUPTE Review Panel conclusions, the independent financial consultant analysis, and the quality of the project and contribution it could make to downtown vibrancy and the City’s planning goals, the City Manager recommends approval of the MUPTE with the terms and conditions in the resolution (Attachment H).
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt a resolution approving a multiple-unit property tax exemption for residential property located at 1040 and 1050 Ferry Street, Eugene, Oregon (Applicant RNS Management, LLC.
ATTACHMENTS A. Summary of MUPTE Program and Process Diagram B. Map of Ferry St. Manor Project Site C. MUPTE Review Panel Member List D. MUPTE Review Panel Conclusions and Minority Reports E. Report and Recommendation of the Planning and Development Director F. Independent Financial Consultant Analysis G. Written Comment Received by Staff through August 26 H. Resolution Approving the Property Tax Exemption
A copy of the Ferry St. Manor MUPTE application is available in the council office and online at
www.eugene-or.gov/3281/MUPTE-Applications
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Amanda D’Souza Telephone: 541-682-5540 E-mail: adsouza@eugene-or.gov
Attachment A
Summary of MUPTE Program & Process Diagram
MUPTE Program
MUPTE is an incentive program to encourage high quality, multi-unit downtown housing
especially in areas well served by public transit. Both rental housing and multi-unit housing for
home ownership are eligible; student housing is ineligible. Enabled by state law, the program
provides a 10-year property tax exemption on qualified new multi-unit housing investments that
occur within a specific, targeted area, that meet program requirements, and that are reviewed
and approved by council. The objective strongly aligns with several of the pillars of Envision
Eugene. Increasing the amount of multi-family housing in the downtown helps reduce pressure
on urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion and protects existing neighborhoods, and takes
advantage of existing infrastructure.
During the exemption period, property owners still pay taxes on the assessed value of the land and
any existing improvements on the property. Council can deem commercial portions of a project to
be a public benefit and include them as part of the exemption along with the residential portion.
In 2015, after a two-and-a-half year review, council revised the program criteria, process, and
boundary. The program changes:
•Removed student housing as an eligible project type
•Increased the required energy efficiency
•Required higher quality design, with design at approval attached to the resolution
•Expanded neighborhood involvement
•Added a moderate-income housing contribution
•Added local economic impact plan
•Added demonstrated project need reviewed by an independent financial consultant
•Added a community member third-party review (MUPTE Review Panel described below)
See below for the process diagram and boundary map. The Required Public Benefit criteria are:
•Compact Urban Development
•Green Building Features (ensuring building energy performance is 10% above code)
•Local Economic Impact Plan (including support for local businesses, minority and women
business enterprises, and ensuring compliance with laws)
•Moderate-Income Housing Contribution
•Project Design and Compatibility (including scale, form, and quality of the building; mixture
of project elements; relationship to the street and surrounding uses; and parking and
circulation)
•Historic and Existing Housing Sensitivity
•Project Need
MUPTE Review Panel
The 2015 MUPTE update established a Review Panel, tasked with providing a third-party review
of individual applications for the City Manager. The Review Panel:
•Reviews the project applications, including the consultant’s review of the project’s financial
projections.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
•Reviews the applicant’s conformance with the Required Public Benefits and making
recommendations regarding approval/denial of the tax exemption to the City Manager.
•Reviews the project’s conformance with approval requirements midway through
construction, at completion of construction, and during the exemption period.
•Assists the City Manager in preparing an Annual Report on progress of the approved
projects, program volume cap, and reporting documentation.
The Review Panel consists of two at-large neighborhood representatives selected by
neighborhood association boards, an additional two representatives selected by the board of the
neighborhood association in which the proposed project is located, and six technical professionals
selected by the City Manager from the following six groups: architects/green building specialists;
building trades union; developers; environmental professionals; public health professionals; and
human rights representatives. Prior Review Panel reports can be found at www.eugene-
or.gov/MUPTE
MUPTE Boundary
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Ferry St. Manor
(proposed building;
MUPTE would apply only to this
building’s property taxes)
Eugene Manor
(existing building;
MUPTE will not apply )
Ferry St. Manor Project Site
Attachment B
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Attachment C
MUPTE Review Panel – Ferry St. Manor Application
Seat Member Developer Hugh Prichard Prichard Partners, Inc. (Temporary substitute for Ferry St. Manor application only) Building Trades (Chair) Jeff Harms Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters Environment Professional Aaron Whitney 2fORM Architecture Architect/Green Building (Co-Chair) Larry Banks Pivot Architecture Public Health Amy Bleekman, REHS Lane County Environmental Health Human Rights Representative Ela Kubok Homes for Good At-Large Neighborhood Representative Lloyd Helikson
At-Large Neighborhood Representative Bill Aspegren
West University Neighborhood Representative Steve Baker (Ferry St. Manor application only) West University Neighborhood Representative Dan Lawler (Ferry St. Manor application only)
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
MUPTE Review Panel Conclusions
Ferry St. Manor
General Requirements
Overall Concerns
The Panel agreed that the Project meets the
general requirement criteria, including:
•The proposed project is not student housing,
has 5 or more units, and is within the
boundary.
•The required neighborhood engagement for
this point in the process was met with the
applicant hosting an engagement opportunity
for surrounding neighbors in the West
University Neighborhood to learn about the
project.
None.
It was noted that the proposed project is not
student housing as defined by the adopted
MUPTE regulations. Attendees at the
Neighborhood meeting were told by the owner
that 50% of the Eugene Manor apartments (in
the existing building on the site) are currently
rented to students.
REQUIRED PUBLIC BENEFITS
1.Compact Urban Development
Overall Concerns
The Panel agreed that the proposed project
meets the minimum density required by the
MUPTE program. The project is currently zoned
as R-4 High Density Residential, which requires at
least 20 housing units per acre and a maximum of
112 units per acre. Ferry St. Manor proposal
includes 50 dwelling units, which would result in
103 units per acre.
None.
2. Green Building Features
Overall Concerns
In order to achieve the green building public
benefit threshold of performing at least 10%
more efficiently than the Oregon Energy
Efficiency Specialty Code, the applicant chose the
City of Eugene Building and Permit Services
pathway. The Panel agreed that the applicant
indicated their understanding of the post-award
Green Building requirements, including the
project would need to meet the energy
efficiency and green building documentation
requirements set out in the program (energy
model at permit application and commissioning
report 18 months after Certificate of Occupancy).
None.
Attachment D
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
3. Local Economic Impact Plan
Local Conditions
Overall Concerns
The Panel agreed that the applicant provided a
plan that adequately demonstrates how the
applicant will ensure that more than 50% of
dollar volume of professional services and
construction costs will be local to Lane County.
None.
Minority and Women Business Enterprises
Overall Concerns
The Panel agreed that the applicant provided a
plan that adequately describes how they will
provide an equitable opportunity for minority
and women business enterprises to compete for
development related contracts.
None.
Compliance with Laws
Overall Concerns
The Panel agreed that the applicant provided a
plan that adequately describes how they intend
to ensure that all parties involved, including
contractors and subcontractors, will comply with
wage, tax, and licensing laws.
None.
4. Moderate-Income Housing Contribution
Overall Concerns
The Panel agreed that the applicant plans to
meet the moderate-income housing contribution
requirement by including moderate-income
housing units in the development. 15 of their 30
units will be moderate-income units.
None.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
5. Project Design and Compatibility
Overall Concerns
The Panel discussed the project’s overall design
elements and agreed that the applicant provided
a narrative and accompanying graphics that
adequately demonstrate how the project
addresses the basic design principles, including:
•Scale, form, and quality of building;
•Mixture of project elements;
•Relationship to the street and
surrounding uses; and
•Parking and circulation.
The Panel concluded that based on the MUPTE
decision criteria, the project meets the “parking
and circulation” component. There were some
parking concerns and the ordinance does not give
the Panel the authority to evaluate parking
impacts. Several members expressed concerns
about the land use adjustment review process
that would reduce the minimum required parking
to the amount including in the MUPTE
application and its potential negative impacts
beyond the project site.
6. Historic and Existing Housing Sensitivity
Overall Concerns
The Panel agreed that the project does not
impact historic locales or existing housing.
None.
7. Project Need
Overall Concerns
Based on Johnson Economics’ analysis, the
majority (6 members) of the Panel concluded
that the 10-year exemption is needed for the
project. One member advocated for an 8-year
exemption, which could be amended should the
permanent loan have a 5% interest rate. One
member advocated for a 5-year exemption. One
member advocated for no exemption.
The Panel had a robust discussion about the
project need, including evaluation of the pro-
forma assumptions and the challenge of
evaluating variables that are hard to predict.
Overall recommendation to the City Manager:
Provide a ten-year MUPTE.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
08/12/19 Page
08/12/19 Page
08/12/19 Page
08/12/19 Page
08/12/19 Page
08/12/19 Page
08/12/19 Page
08/12/19 Page
08/12/19 Page
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED EFFECT OF ADJUSTMENTS TO APPLICANT’S DATA AND ANALYSIS
Item
No.
Applicant’s Data and Adjustments
DCR of 1.2 and COC, Cash Flow
Return of 5%
Applican
t Amount
Adjustme
nt
Resultin
g
Amount
Project
Cost
Annual
Debt
Service
DCR of 1.2 COC, Cash
Flow Return
of 5%
COC, Return
on Equity
Potential
MUPTE
Need
1 From Applicant’s Data $8,274,950 $451,049 Not in 10 Years Year 10: 4.97%Year 10: 14.2%10 Years
2 Adjust from 5.5 to 5.0% Interest Rate $8,274,950 $426,449 Year 9: 1.220 Year 9: 5.67%Year 9: 14.5% 8 Years
3 Revise Property Taxes, 2018 vs. 2017
CPR (and 2)
$92,340 -$3,428 $88,912 Year 8: 1.200 Year 8: 5.14%Year 8: 13.5% 7 Years
4 Place Applicant Reserves After NOI
(and 2, 3)
Year 6: 1.206 Year 8: 5.14%Year 8: 13.5% 7 Years
5 Reserves at $300/unit, Not Escalated,
After NOI (and 2, 3)
$24,868 -$9,868 $15,000 Year 6: 1.206 Year 7: 5.18%Year 7: 13.1% 6 Years
6 Reduce Contingencies from almost
10% to 5% Hard and 3% Soft
Construction Costs (and 2, 3, 5)
$641,320 -$322,929 $318,391 $7,952,021 $409,806 Year 4: 1.204 Year 5: 5.08%Year 5: 12.3% 4 Years
Further Reduce Property Taxes
Reflecting Lower Project Cost
$92,340 -$6,898 $85,442
7 Remove Development Fee (and 2, 3, 5,
6)
$283,465 -$283,465 $0 $7,668,556 $395,198 Year 3: 1.226 Year 4: 5.62%Year 4: 12.5% 3 Years
Further Reduce Property Taxes
Reflecting Lower Project Cost
$92,340 -$9,944 $82,396
DCR: Debt Service Coverage Ratio: 1.2 Minimum
COC, Cash Flow Return: Cash Flow ÷ Equity COC, Return on Equity: (Cash Flow + Debt Service Payments to Principal) ÷ Equity
REVIEW OF MUPTE APPLICATION FERRY STREET MANOR PROJECT
WITHOUT MUPTE SCENARIOS Revised 08/08/19September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Table 1: W/O MUPTE; Applicant’s Data.
Year 1 - 2021 Year 2 - 2022 Year 3 - 2023 Year 4 - 2024 Year 5 - 2025 Year 6 - 2026 Year 7 - 2027 Year 8 - 2028 Year 9 - 2029 Year 10 - 2030
Interest Rate:5.5%0.055 Amortization (Years):30 Monthly Debt Service:$37,587.38
Equity (20%): $1,654,990 Loan Amount (80%):$6,619,960 Project Cost:$8,274,950
Gross Revenue $599,809 $747,910 $766,608 $785,773 $805,417 $825,553 $846,192 $867,346 $889,030 $911,256
Vacancy 5%$18,698 $37,396 $38,330 $39,289 $40,271 $41,278 $42,310 $43,367 $44,451 $45,563
Effective Gross Income $581,111 $710,515 $728,277 $746,484 $765,146 $784,275 $803,882 $823,979 $844,578 $865,693
Apartment Operating Expense,
excluding property taxes
$147,588 $180,454 $184,965 $189,589 $194,329 $199,187 $204,167 $209,271 $214,503 $219,866
Property Taxes-Improvements $75,523 $92,340 $94,649 $97,015 $99,440 $101,926 $104,474 $107,086 $109,763 $112,507
Total Expenses $223,111 $272,794 $279,614 $286,604 $293,769 $301,114 $308,641 $316,357 $324,266 $332,373
Net Operating Income $358,000 $437,721 $448,664 $459,880 $471,377 $483,162 $495,241 $507,622 $520,312 $533,320
Debt Service 30YrAmort $451,049 $451,049 $451,049 $451,049 $451,049 $451,049 $451,049 $451,049 $451,049 $451,049
Cash Flow -$93,049 -$13,328 -$2,385 $8,832 $20,329 $32,113 $44,192 $56,573 $69,264 $82,271
Cash-on-Cash Return (CashFlow)-5.62%-0.81%-0.14%0.53%1.23%1.94%2.67%3.42%4.19%4.97%
(Cash Flow/Equity)
EOY Loan Balance $6,522,291 $6,419,626 $6,311,708 $6,198,268 $6,079,025 $5,953,682 $5,821,925 $5,683,427 $5,537,844 $5,384,812
Payments to Principal $97,669 $102,666 $107,918 $113,439 $119,243 $125,344 $131,757 $138,498 $145,583 $153,032
Cash Flow w/ Principal Payments $4,620 $89,337 $105,533 $122,271 $139,572 $157,457 $175,949 $195,071 $214,847 $235,303
Cash-0n-Cash (Return on Equity)0.3%5.4%6.4%7.4%8.4%9.5%10.6%11.8%13.0%14.2%
Debt Coverage Ratio Goal 1.2 0.79 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.13 1.15 1.18
MUPTE APPLICATION MINORITY REPORT FERRY STREET MANOR PROJECT
TABLE 1 From Applicant's Data Revised 08/08/19September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Table 2: W/O MUPTE; Applicant’s Data; 5% Interest
Year 1 - 2021 Year 2 - 2022 Year 3 - 2023 Year 4 - 2024 Year 5 - 2025 Year 6 - 2026 Year 7 - 2027 Year 8 - 2028 Year 9 - 2029 Year 10 - 2030
Interest Rate:5%0.05 Amortization (Years):30 Monthly Debt Service:$35,537.38
Equity (20%): $1,654,990 Loan Amount (80%):$6,619,960 Project Cost:$8,274,950
Gross Revenue $599,809 $747,910 $766,608 $785,773 $805,417 $825,553 $846,192 $867,346 $889,030 $911,256
Vacancy 5%$18,698 $37,396 $38,330 $39,289 $40,271 $41,278 $42,310 $43,367 $44,451 $45,563
Effective Gross Income $581,111 $710,515 $728,277 $746,484 $765,146 $784,275 $803,882 $823,979 $844,578 $865,693
Apartment Operating Expense,
excluding property taxes
$147,588 $180,454 $184,965 $189,589 $194,329 $199,187 $204,167 $209,271 $214,503 $219,866
Property Taxes-Improvements $75,523 $92,340 $94,649 $97,015 $99,440 $101,926 $104,474 $107,086 $109,763 $112,507
Total Expenses $223,111 $272,794 $279,614 $286,604 $293,769 $301,114 $308,641 $316,357 $324,266 $332,373
Net Operating Income $358,000 $437,721 $448,664 $459,880 $471,377 $483,162 $495,241 $507,622 $520,312 $533,320
Debt Service 30YrAmort $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449
Cash Flow -$68,449 $11,272 $22,215 $33,432 $44,929 $56,713 $68,792 $81,173 $93,864 $106,871
Cash-on-Cash Return (CashFlow)-4.14%0.68%1.34%2.02%2.71%3.43%4.16%4.90%5.67%6.46%
(Cash Flow/Equity)
EOY Loan Balance $6,522,291 $6,419,626 $6,311,708 $6,198,268 $6,079,025 $5,953,682 $5,821,925 $5,683,427 $5,537,844 $5,384,812
Payments to Principal $97,669 $102,666 $107,918 $113,439 $119,243 $125,344 $131,757 $138,498 $145,583 $153,032
Cash Flow w/ Principal Payments $29,220 $113,937 $130,133 $146,871 $164,172 $182,057 $200,549 $219,671 $239,447 $259,903
Cash-0n-Cash (Return on Equity)1.8%6.9%7.9%8.9%9.9%11.0%12.1%13.3%14.5%15.7%
Debt Coverage Ratio Goal 1.2 0.839 1.026 1.052 1.078 1.105 1.133 1.161 1.190 1.220 1.251
MUPTE APPLICATION MINORITY REPORT FERRY STREET MANOR PROJECT
TABLE 2 Revisions to Applicant's Data Revised 08/08/19September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Table 3: W/O MUPTE; Applicant’s Data; 5% Interest; Revised Property Taxes
Year 1 - 2021 Year 2 - 2022 Year 3 - 2023 Year 4 - 2024 Year 5 - 2025 Year 6 - 2026 Year 7 - 2027 Year 8 - 2028 Year 9 - 2029 Year 10 - 2030
Interest Rate:5%0.05 Amortization (Years):30 Monthly Debt Service:$35,537.38
Equity (20%): $1,654,990 Loan Amount (80%):$6,619,960 Project Cost:$8,274,950
Gross Revenue $599,809 $747,910 $766,608 $785,773 $805,417 $825,553 $846,192 $867,346 $889,030 $911,256
Vacancy 5%$18,698 $37,396 $38,330 $39,289 $40,271 $41,278 $42,310 $43,367 $44,451 $45,563
Effective Gross Income $581,111 $710,515 $728,277 $746,484 $765,146 $784,275 $803,882 $823,979 $844,578 $865,693
Apartment Operating Expense,
excluding property taxes
$147,462 $180,454 $184,965 $189,589 $194,329 $199,187 $204,167 $209,271 $214,503 $219,866
Property Taxes-Improvements $70,455 $88,912 $91,135 $93,413 $95,748 $98,142 $100,596 $103,111 $105,688 $108,331
Total Expenses $217,917 $269,366 $276,100 $283,003 $290,078 $297,330 $304,763 $312,382 $320,192 $328,196
Net Operating Income $363,194 $441,149 $452,177 $463,482 $475,069 $486,945 $499,119 $511,597 $524,387 $537,497
Debt Service 30YrAmort $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449
Cash Flow -$63,255 $14,700 $25,729 $37,033 $48,620 $60,497 $72,670 $85,148 $97,938 $111,048
Cash-on-Cash Return (CashFlow)-3.82%0.89%1.55%2.24%2.94%3.66%4.39%5.14%5.92%6.71%
(Cash Flow/Equity)
EOY Loan Balance $6,522,291 $6,419,626 $6,311,708 $6,198,268 $6,079,025 $5,953,682 $5,821,925 $5,683,427 $5,537,844 $5,384,812
Payments to Principal $97,669 $102,666 $107,918 $113,439 $119,243 $125,344 $131,757 $138,498 $145,583 $153,032
Cash Flow w/ Principal Payments $34,414 $117,365 $133,647 $150,472 $167,863 $185,841 $204,427 $223,646 $243,522 $264,080
Cash-0n-Cash (Return on Equity)2.1%7.1%8.1%9.1%10.1%11.2%12.4%13.5%14.7%16.0%
Debt Coverage Ratio Goal 1.2 0.852 1.034 1.060 1.087 1.114 1.142 1.170 1.200 1.230 1.260
MUPTE APPLICATION MINORITY REPORT FERRY STREET MANOR PROJECT
TABLE 3 Revisions to Applicant's Data Revised 08/08/19September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Table 4: W/O MUPTE; Applicant’s Data; Except: 5% Interest; Revised Property Taxes; Reserves after NOI
Year 1 - 2021 Year 2 - 2022 Year 3 - 2023 Year 4 - 2024 Year 5 - 2025 Year 6 - 2026 Year 7 - 2027 Year 8 - 2028 Year 9 - 2029 Year 10 - 2030
Interest Rate:5%0.05 Amortization (Years):30 Monthly Debt Service:$35,537.38
Equity (20%): $1,654,990 Loan Amount (80%):$6,619,960 Project Cost:$8,274,950
Gross Revenue $599,809 $747,910 $766,608 $785,773 $805,417 $825,553 $846,192 $867,346 $889,030 $911,256
Vacancy 5%$18,698 $37,396 $38,330 $39,289 $40,271 $41,278 $42,310 $43,367 $44,451 $45,563
Effective Gross Income $581,111 $710,515 $728,277 $746,484 $765,146 $784,275 $803,882 $823,979 $844,578 $865,693
Apartment Operating Expense,
excluding property taxes, reserves
$127,141 $155,586 $159,476 $163,463 $167,549 $171,738 $176,031 $180,432 $184,943 $189,566
Property Taxes-Improvements $70,455 $88,912 $91,135 $93,413 $95,748 $98,142 $100,596 $103,111 $105,688 $108,331
Total Expenses $197,596 $244,498 $250,610 $256,876 $263,298 $269,880 $276,627 $283,543 $290,631 $297,897
Net Operating Income $383,515 $466,017 $477,667 $489,609 $501,849 $514,395 $527,255 $540,436 $553,947 $567,796
Reserves $20,321 $24,868 $25,490 $26,127 $26,780 $27,450 $28,136 $28,839 $29,560 $30,299
Debt Service 30YrAmort $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449
Cash Flow -$42,934 $14,700 $25,729 $37,033 $48,620 $60,497 $72,670 $85,148 $97,938 $111,048
Cash-on-Cash Return (CashFlow)-2.59%0.89%1.55%2.24%2.94%3.66%4.39%5.14%5.92%6.71%
(Cash Flow/Equity)
EOY Loan Balance $6,522,291 $6,419,626 $6,311,708 $6,198,268 $6,079,025 $5,953,682 $5,821,925 $5,683,427 $5,537,844 $5,384,812
Payments to Principal $97,669 $102,666 $107,918 $113,439 $119,243 $125,344 $131,757 $138,498 $145,583 $153,032
Cash Flow w/ Principal Payments $54,735 $117,365 $133,647 $150,472 $167,863 $185,841 $204,427 $223,646 $243,522 $264,080
Cash-0n-Cash (Return on Equity)3.3%7.1%8.1%9.1%10.1%11.2%12.4%13.5%14.7%16.0%
Debt Coverage Ratio Goal 1.2 0.899 1.093 1.120 1.148 1.177 1.206 1.236 1.267 1.299 1.331
MUPTE APPLICATION MINORITY REPORT FERRY STREET MANOR PROJECT
TABLE 4 Revisions to Applicant's Data Revised 08/08/19September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Table 5: W/O MUPTE; Applicant’s Data; Except: 5% Interest; Revised Property Taxes; Reserves below NOI @ $300/unit
Year 1 - 2021 Year 2 - 2022 Year 3 - 2023 Year 4 - 2024 Year 5 - 2025 Year 6 - 2026 Year 7 - 2027 Year 8 - 2028 Year 9 - 2029 Year 10 - 2030
Interest Rate:5%0.05 Amortization (Years):30 Monthly Debt Service:$35,537.38
Equity (20%): $1,654,990 Loan Amount (80%):$6,619,960 Project Cost:$8,274,950
Gross Revenue $599,809 $747,910 $766,608 $785,773 $805,417 $825,553 $846,192 $867,346 $889,030 $911,256
Vacancy 5%$18,698 $37,396 $38,330 $39,289 $40,271 $41,278 $42,310 $43,367 $44,451 $45,563
Effective Gross Income $581,111 $710,515 $728,277 $746,484 $765,146 $784,275 $803,882 $823,979 $844,578 $865,693
Apartment Operating Expense,
excluding property taxes, reserves
$127,141 $155,586 $159,476 $163,463 $167,549 $171,738 $176,031 $180,432 $184,943 $189,566
Property Taxes-Improvements $72,657 $88,912 $91,135 $93,413 $95,748 $98,142 $100,596 $103,111 $105,688 $108,331
Total Expenses $199,798 $244,498 $250,610 $256,876 $263,298 $269,880 $276,627 $283,543 $290,631 $297,897
Net Operating Income $381,313 $466,017 $477,667 $489,609 $501,849 $514,395 $527,255 $540,436 $553,947 $567,796
Reserves $12,258 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Debt Service 30YrAmort $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449 $426,449
Cash Flow -$45,135 $24,568 $36,218 $48,160 $60,400 $72,946 $85,806 $98,988 $112,499 $126,347
Cash-on-Cash Return (CashFlow)-2.73%1.48%2.19%2.91%3.65%4.41%5.18%5.98%6.80%7.63%
(Cash Flow/Equity)
EOY Loan Balance $6,522,291 $6,419,626 $6,311,708 $6,198,268 $6,079,025 $5,953,682 $5,821,925 $5,683,427 $5,537,844 $5,384,812
Payments to Principal $97,669 $102,666 $107,918 $113,439 $119,243 $125,344 $131,757 $138,498 $145,583 $153,032
Cash Flow w/ Principal Payments $52,533 $127,233 $144,136 $161,599 $179,643 $198,290 $217,563 $237,485 $258,082 $279,379
Cash-0n-Cash (Return on Equity)3.2%7.7%8.7%9.8%10.9%12.0%13.1%14.3%15.6%16.9%
Debt Coverage Ratio Goal 1.2 0.894 1.093 1.120 1.148 1.177 1.206 1.236 1.267 1.299 1.331
MUPTE APPLICATION MINORITY REPORT FERRY STREET MANOR PROJECT
TABLE 5 Revisions to Applicant's Data Revised 08/08/19September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Table 6: W/O MUPTE; Applicant’s Data; Except: 5% Interest; Revised Property Taxes; Reserves below NOI @ $300/unit; Reduce Contingencies
Year 1 - 2021 Year 2 - 2022 Year 3 - 2023 Year 4 - 2024 Year 5 - 2025 Year 6 - 2026 Year 7 - 2027 Year 8 - 2028 Year 9 - 2029 Year 10 - 2030
Interest Rate:5%0.05 Amortization (Years):30 Monthly Debt Service:$34,150.54
Equity (20%): $1,590,404 Loan Amount (80%):$6,361,617 Project Cost:$7,952,021
Gross Revenue $599,809 $747,910 $766,608 $785,773 $805,417 $825,553 $846,192 $867,346 $889,030 $911,256
Vacancy 5%$18,698 $37,396 $38,330 $39,289 $40,271 $41,278 $42,310 $43,367 $44,451 $45,563
Effective Gross Income $581,111 $710,515 $728,277 $746,484 $765,146 $784,275 $803,882 $823,979 $844,578 $865,693
Apartment Operating Expense,
excluding property taxes, reserves
$127,141 $155,586 $159,476 $163,463 $167,549 $171,738 $176,031 $180,432 $184,943 $189,566
Property Taxes-Improvements $69,818 $85,442 $87,578 $89,768 $92,012 $94,312 $96,670 $99,087 $101,564 $104,103
Total Expenses $196,959 $241,028 $247,054 $253,230 $259,561 $266,050 $272,701 $279,519 $286,507 $293,669
Net Operating Income $384,152 $469,487 $481,224 $493,254 $505,586 $518,225 $531,181 $544,460 $558,072 $572,024
Reserves $12,258 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Debt Service 30YrAmort $409,806 $409,806 $409,806 $409,806 $409,806 $409,806 $409,806 $409,806 $409,806 $409,806
Cash Flow -$25,655 $44,680 $56,417 $68,448 $80,779 $93,419 $106,374 $119,654 $133,265 $147,217
Cash-on-Cash Return (CashFlow)-1.61%2.81%3.55%4.30%5.08%5.87%6.69%7.52%8.38%9.26%
(Cash Flow/Equity)
EOY Loan Balance $6,267,760 $6,169,101 $6,065,394 $5,956,382 $5,841,792 $5,721,340 $5,594,725 $5,461,632 $5,321,730 $5,174,671
Payments to Principal $93,857 $98,659 $103,707 $109,012 $114,590 $120,452 $126,615 $133,093 $139,902 $147,060
Cash Flow w/ Principal Payments $68,202 $143,339 $160,124 $177,460 $195,369 $213,871 $232,989 $252,747 $273,167 $294,277
Cash-0n-Cash (Return on Equity)4.3%9.0%10.1%11.2%12.3%13.4%14.6%15.9%17.2%18.5%
Debt Coverage Ratio Goal 1.2 0.937 1.146 1.174 1.204 1.234 1.265 1.296 1.329 1.362 1.396
MUPTE APPLICATION MINORITY REPORT FERRY STREET MANOR PROJECT
TABLE 6 Revisions to Applicant's Data Revised 08/08/19September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Table 7: W/O MUPTE; Applicant’s Data; Except: 5% Interest; Revised Property Taxes; Reserves below NOI @ $300/unit; Reduce Contingencies; Remove Development Fee
Year 1 - 2021 Year 2 - 2022 Year 3 - 2023 Year 4 - 2024 Year 5 - 2025 Year 6 - 2026 Year 7 - 2027 Year 8 - 2028 Year 9 - 2029 Year 10 - 2030
Interest Rate:5%0.05 Amortization (Years):30 Monthly Debt Service:$32,933.17
Equity (20%): $1,533,711 Loan Amount (80%):$6,134,845 Project Cost:$7,668,556
Gross Revenue $599,809 $747,910 $766,608 $785,773 $805,417 $825,553 $846,192 $867,346 $889,030 $911,256
Vacancy 5%$18,698 $37,396 $38,330 $39,289 $40,271 $41,278 $42,310 $43,367 $44,451 $45,563
Effective Gross Income $581,111 $710,515 $728,277 $746,484 $765,146 $784,275 $803,882 $823,979 $844,578 $865,693
Apartment Operating Expense,
excluding property taxes, reserves
$127,141 $155,586 $159,476 $163,463 $167,549 $171,738 $176,031 $180,432 $184,943 $189,566
Property Taxes-Improvements $67,332 $82,396 $84,456 $86,567 $88,731 $90,950 $93,224 $95,554 $97,943 $100,392
Total Expenses $194,473 $237,982 $243,932 $250,030 $256,281 $262,688 $269,255 $275,986 $282,886 $289,958
Net Operating Income $386,638 $472,533 $484,346 $496,454 $508,866 $521,587 $534,627 $547,993 $561,693 $575,735
Reserves $12,258 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Debt Service 30YrAmort $395,198 $395,198 $395,198 $395,198 $395,198 $395,198 $395,198 $395,198 $395,198 $395,198
Cash Flow -$8,560 $62,334 $74,148 $86,256 $98,668 $111,389 $124,429 $137,795 $151,495 $165,537
Cash-on-Cash Return (CashFlow)-0.56%4.06%4.83%5.62%6.43%7.26%8.11%8.98%9.88%10.79%
(Cash Flow/Equity)
EOY Loan Balance $6,044,334 $5,949,191 $5,849,182 $5,744,055 $5,633,550 $5,517,392 $5,395,290 $5,266,942 $5,132,027 $4,990,210
Payments to Principal $90,511 $95,142 $100,010 $105,126 $110,505 $116,159 $122,101 $128,348 $134,915 $141,817
Cash Flow w/ Principal Payments $81,951 $157,477 $174,158 $191,383 $209,173 $227,548 $246,531 $266,143 $286,410 $307,354
Cash-0n-Cash (Return on Equity)5.3%10.3%11.4%12.5%13.6%14.8%16.1%17.4%18.7%20.0%
Debt Service Coverage Ratio Goal 1.2 0.978 1.196 1.226 1.256 1.288 1.320 1.353 1.387 1.421 1.457
MUPTE APPLICATION MINORITY REPORT FERRY STREET MANOR PROJECT
TABLE 7 Revisions to Applicant's Data Revised 08/08/19September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Changed Property Ratio by Year
LANE COUNTY
CPRDescription ValueTax Year
2018
0Changed Property Ratio - Miscellaneous 1.000000
1Changed Property Ratio - Residential 0.699000
2Changed Property Ratio - Commercial 0.646000
3Changed Property Ratio - Industrial 0.646000
4Changed Property Ratio - Tract Farm 0.687000
5Changed Property Ratio - Farm & Forest 0.687000
6Changed Property Ratio - Forest 0.687000
7Changed Property Ratio - Multiple Housin 0.583000
8Changed Property Ratio - Recreational 0.338000
I Changed Property Ratio - State Appraised 1.000000
M Changed Property Ratio - M&E 1.000000
PChanged Property Ratio - Open Space 0.619000
2017
0Changed Property Ratio - Miscellaneous 1.000000
1Changed Property Ratio - Residential 0.739000
2Changed Property Ratio - Commercial 0.659000
3Changed Property Ratio - Industrial 0.659000
4Changed Property Ratio - Tract Farm 0.712000
5Changed Property Ratio - Farm & Forest 0.712000
6Changed Property Ratio - Forest 0.712000
7Changed Property Ratio - Multiple Housin 0.592000
8Changed Property Ratio - Recreational 0.608000
I Changed Property Ratio - State Appraised 1.000000
M Changed Property Ratio - M&E 1.000000
PChanged Property Ratio - Open Space 0.613000
Thursday, October 11, 2018 Page 1 of 8LAN0318 [Ascend_Prod_Rpt]September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
August 12, 2019
TO: Eugene City Manager
RE: Ferry Street Manor MUPTE Minority Report/Parking
FROM: Bill Aspegren
At Large Neighborhood Member, Eugene MUPTE Review Panel
I voted against awarding the Ferry Street Manor project a Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE)
because it did not meet the off-street parking standards for the West University Neighborhood.
The applicant planned to reduce parking for the combined complex of Ferry Street Manor and Eugene
Manor by 50%. This left 62 spaces for 123 dwelling units. The project, in its location, is not viable with
this reduced level of off-street parking.
The Institute of Traffic Engineers1 (ITE) has a graph that shows parking demand vs. dwelling units for a
building like Ferry Street Manor (Exhibit A). From that graph the average peak period parking demand is
1.20 vehicles per dwelling unit. This seems excessive for this development given it is walkable, near
transit, downtown and UO and 70% of the apartments are studios. Subtracting a standard deviation (.42,
from ITE graph) should be enough to take this into account. The following table compares various
options.
Eugene Parking Requirements Compared to ITE Recommendations
And Ferry Street Manor Request
Option Number of
Dwelling Units
Times Parking
Factor
Total
Spaces
Eugene Parking Requirements 123 0.75 93
ITE Recommended Spaces Per Dwelling Unit 123 1.20 148
ITE Rec Less a 0.42 Std Deviation 123 0.78 96
ITE Rec Low Range Vehicles Per Dwelling 123 0.66 81
Ferry Street Manor Requested Parking 123 0.50 62
The above comparisons show that the planned 62 off-street parking spaces are well below even the
lowest range determined from ITE surveys. The standard Eugene discount of 25% (.75 factor) is a
reasonable option, to the extent it applies to all 123 units. Further reduction is hard to justify for a
residential development.
Residents won’t need cars?
To justify the reduction the argument can be made that the Ferry Street/Eugene Manor complex is
walkable, near public transportation and bicycling and therefore, residents will not need or have cars.
Eugene code already gives a 25% reduction as a right of development. Based on the ITE information,
Eugene’s standard reduction is enough to take these factors into account.
1 Information supplied by the Institute of Traffic Engineers is a standard used in Eugene Code for adjustments and
other traffic and parking analysis.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Students and cars
This complex of apartments does not fit the MUPTE definition of student apartments. However, it is
near UO and 50% of the current units are rented to students. Previous experience has shown students
bring cars to school even when there is limited parking at their residence. In fact, that is why special
parking standards were put into effect for areas near the university. (See Ordinance 20447)2
Millennials Love Cars
I have attached a study by some folks at MIT that is titled: Turns out, millennials love cars as much as
anyone else (Exhibit B).
Interesting Websites
Eugene puts a lot of faith in the idea that people will use their bicycles to run errands. There are reasons
this may be a false hope. The first link is an article about Salem, Oregon planners finding people are not
using their bikes as much as anticipated. The second link discusses the Vancouver, BC effort to meet the
need for more bike friendly bicycle lanes.
Salem commuters expected to stick with cars, skipping bikes and their own feet
https://www.salemreporter.com/posts/856/study-projects-salems-greenhouse-gas-emissions-could-
grow-by-2035
If only experienced cyclists feel safe in a bike lane, then is it a bike lane at all?
https://www.fastcompany.com/90361034/if-only-experienced-cyclists-feel-safe-in-a-bike-lane-
then-is-it-a-bike-lane-at-all
Final Words
Parking is at a premium where Ferry Street Manor is planned to be built. The 25% by right of
development reduction fits in with ITE guidelines. Further reductions will only make the area parking
problems worse. No development in a residential zone has ever received a 50% reduction for off-
street parking. A request was made in 2013 but was withdrawn and the required parking was built. (See
ARA 13-12 and ARA 13-16)3
Eugene’s off-street parking standards are reasonable for the area near UO.
I stand by my vote not to grant a MUPTE to the current version of the Ferry Street Manor project.
2 Ordinance 20447 is available at http://coeapps.eugene-or.gov/cmoweblink/0/doc/540191/Page1.aspx
3 These adjustment requests are available using the Eugene Land Use Search tool.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Exhibit A
ITE Parking Generation Graph
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Exhibit B
Turns out, millennials love cars as much as
anyone Else
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Opinion: Turns out, millennials love cars as much as anyone else
By Christopher Knittel
Published: May 17, 2019 9:38 a.m. ET
Their car choices are influenced by circumstances, new research shows
It is common these days to suggest that millennials have dramatically different preferences than other
generations.
Whether it is the food they buy or the investments they make, the common consensus is that millennials
are fundamentally disrupting a variety of industries due to their divergent preferences. However, such
claims have not been explored rigorously and limited data have been used to support those hypotheses.
Recently, here at the Sloan School at MIT, my colleague Elizabeth Murphy and I set out to study the car
preferences of those between ages 18 and 37 in a rigorous way, and found that millennials may not be
expressing a lack of preference or enthusiasm for vehicles, per se. Instead, their car choices may be
dominated more by situational forces — such as the economic problems this generation encountered
due to the Great Recession or the likelihood that they live in a city as opposed to a suburb.
Understanding the true preferences of the millennial generation can provide insight into the future
landscape of mobility, and thus provide both industry and policy makers with more information about
what business practices and policies to implement. This is particularly true when it comes to our policies
related to global warming.
Read: Behavioral finance experts say these things can make you richer in old age
Car ownership
The low vehicle ownership statistics that have been attributed to millennials — the ones we’ve been
quietly hoping will solve climate change — are likely just an artifact of the economic conditions and
general life cycles they’ve faced. Unfortunately, they do not represent some fundamental difference in
their demand for cars and this fact will reverberate long and hard in our battle against climate change.
Let’s look at the research and let me explain.
Our study focused on two main facets of personal mobility: vehicle ownership, measured by how many
vehicles a given household owns, and vehicle usage, measured by annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Each of those provides different insights; vehicle ownership gives a better understanding of the market
for personal vehicles, while vehicle miles traveled provides insight on vehicle fleet usage as well as
environmental footprints.
We found that although a simple comparison of average ownership and use would suggest a difference.
But that is comparing apples to oranges, because those simple comparisons do not account for
differences in age, income and other factors that may drive the demand for mobility.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Two analyses
Our paper contains two sets of analyses. First, using data from various National Household
Transportation Surveys (NHTS), we estimate vehicle ownership rates and annual miles traveled
controlling for confounding variables such as income, household size, urbanity and education. We find
there is no evidence of a difference in vehicle ownership. In contrast to conventional wisdom,
millennials actually drive more miles per year. The most recent NHTS survey took place in 2017, implying
the oldest millennial in the data was 37 years old.
Of course, a skeptic would respond to this first set of analyses believing them to be wrong because some
of those confounding factors are actually life choices, and millennials are choosing to alter those life
choices. To account for this, we also estimate to what degree millennials are altering those life choices,
and here’s the important part: by how much those alterations affect vehicle ownership.
Don’t miss: Here are all the things millennials have been accused of killing — from dinner dates to golf
To do this, we use Census data and estimate how millennials are changing their marriage rates, urbanity,
number of children and income levels. We then estimate how those changes affect vehicle ownership.
While we find that millennials are altering life choices that affect vehicle ownership, the net effect of
those endogenous choices is to reduce vehicle ownership by less than 1%. We can statistically rule out
effects larger than 2%.
Many millennials report they prioritize environmentally friendly products, but our study shows that the
so-called “Green Generation” does not exhibit significantly different preferences when it comes to
transport. This does not inherently mean millennials do not consider the environment in their car-buying
decisions, but for many millennials having a vehicle may not be a choice.
So, what’s the upshot? While there are plenty of interesting ramifications to this for the auto industry,
perhaps the most important take-away is for policy makers. Let’s be clear: The U.S. cannot rely on
millennials’ preferences alone to reduce carbon emissions. They operate under many of the same
constraints as previous generations, and they still have strong preferences for personal vehicles.
Christopher Knittel is the George P. Shultz Professor of Applied Economics at the MIT Sloan School of
Management.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
of the Planning & Development Department
Ferry St. Manor Application for Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption
The Executive Director of the Planning & Development Department of the City of Eugene Finds
that:
1.The Ferry St. Manor apartments will be developed on real property located at 1040 and 1050
Ferry St., Eugene, Oregon (Assessor's Map #17-03-32-23, tax lots 09400 and 09500). RNS
Management, LLC is the current owner of the subject property. RNS Management, LLC
submitted an application pursuant to the City's Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption
("MUPTE") Program (Sections 2.945 and 2.947 of the Eugene Code, 1971), with respect to
residential units to be constructed on the property.
2.As the City Manager's designee, I have reviewed the application and find that:
2.1 The project will provide 35 studio units and 15 one-bedroom units, for a total of 50
residential units, none of which will be used for transient use or vacation occupancy.
There is no commercial space in the building.
2.2 The project is not designed to be student housing, meaning it will be leased by the unit
(rather than by individual rooms or beds) and the unit configuration does not include
several bedrooms with individual bathrooms and sparse common space or include
amenities and location selected primarily for individuals attending college and offer
limited viability as potential housing for the general population. Additionally, the
project does not designate any of the units for transient use or vacation occupancy.
2.3 Construction is expected to be complete on or before January 1, 2022.
2.4 The project is located in the downtown area described in subsection (1) of Section
2.946 of the Eugene Code, 1971.
2.5 The applicant submitted all materials, documents and fees required by the City as set
forth in Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and the administrative rules adopted
by Administrative Order No. 53-18-03-F.
2.6 The applicant responded to the Required Public Benefit criteria as follows:
2.6.1 Compact Urban Development. The project will be built in the R-4 High Density
Residential zone, which requires at least 20 housing units per acre and a
maximum of 112 units per acre. Ferry St. Manor includes 50 dwelling units that
would result in a density of 103 units per acre which is more than 175% of
minimum density as required by section 1.1.1.1 of Rule R-2.945-C.
2.6.2 Green Building Features. The project will utilize the City of Eugene Building
and Permit Services Pathway in order to meet the MUPTE green building
requirement and exceed the 10% energy efficiency threshold. Ferry St. Manor
Report and Recommendation --Page 1 of 4
Attachment E
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
will be required to submit an energy model with their development permit
application and a commissioning report due 18 months after certificate of
occupancy is issued. The project's on-site parking will include installation of
conduit for future electric vehicle charging stations.
2.6.3 Local Economic Impact Plan. A plan is in place for more than 50% of the
project's dollar volume of professional services and construction contracts to
be local to Lane County (estimated at 67%). The applicant is committed to
promoting open competitive opportunities for Minority, Women, and
Emerging Small Businesses, and is committed to complying with wage, tax, and
licensing laws.
2.6.4 Moderate-Income Housing Contribution. The project will provide a minimum
of 30% of the residential units (15 units) with rents that qualify as moderate
income units during the MUPTE period. (Moderate income is defined in the
ordinance as affordable to households at 100% of the area median income.)
2.6.5 Project Design and Compatibility. The project will address basic design
concepts in the context of the project location and will be designed and
permitted for construction as shown in the resolution ( should City Council
approve the MUPTE). The basic design concepts include: the scale, form, and
quality of the building; the mix of project elements; the relationship to the
street and surrounding uses; and parking and circulation.
The building is being constructed as an infill addition on an existing developed
site. The lot includes an existing residential building that will provide scale and
proportion for the infill project. The new building is five floors of residential
use providing 50 units of both market rate and moderate-income units. Placed
at the back of the lot, neither the building nor the site has street frontage. The
south facing lobby provides a highly visible connection to site circulation.
The design elements of the building include a lobby entry with abundant
glazing. A prominent elevator tower provides accent against symmetrically
proportioned bays punctuated with large windows. High quality, durable
materials include, ground face CMU, stucco, and metal wall panel cladding over
a wood framed structure. The cladding is accented with colored and matte
finish metal detailing.
The building meets City requirements for vehicle parking and bicycle parking,
and it provides pedestrian accommodations to access the site and surrounding
street grid through internal pedestrian paths and an access gate to Ferry Alley.
The project design is intended to harmonize with the scale, form and quality of
onsite and adjacent development. The project meets the design intent of
designing for the human scale, appropriate to the local climate and natural
Page 2 of4
Report and Recommendation September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
resiliency, promote transparency, help define a sense of place, fit the
neighborhood, and employ high-quality materials and color.
2.6.6 Historic and Existing Housing Sensitivity. The project is adjacent to one
historic locale, but it is not affected by the Ferry St. Manor redevelopment. The
project includes no direct, structural impacts, such as alterations or
demolitions, to any of the identified resources. No historic structures or
existing housing were demolished or removed from the property in the 2 years
prior to the date of application.
2.6.7 Project Need. The project's pro-forma and financial information was analyzed
by Johnson Economics, an independent, real estate economics consultant who
found that the project as proposed could not be built but for the benefit of the
tax exemption. The financial information Ferry St. Manor submitted in their
application is based on projections prior to finalizing financing, construction,
and tenanting. It includes assumptions regarding rents, vacancy rates,
operating costs, lender underwriting criteria, interest rates, and reasonable
rate of return. Johnson Economics, the Review Panel, and staff reviewed the
assumptions. The Johnson Economics analysis concludes that the project
would not be viable without the availability of the MUPTE, using the
reasonable assumptions outlined and concludes that MUPTE is critical to the
success of the project from a financial feasibility perspective. See Section 4
below for the Review Panel's conclusions.
2.6.8 Public Benefit beyond Period of Exemption. The publ ic benefits of the project that
will ext end beyond the period of the tax exempt ion include Green Building ( energy
performance), Project Design and Compatibility, and Compact Urban
Development .
2.7 A neighborhood engagement meeting on Ferry St. Manor was held on December 18,
2018. As the West University Neighborhood is not currently active, the applicant
provided notice of the meeting to adjacent property owners and tenants.
2.7.1 Future Neighborhood Engagement. Prior to completing final drawings, Ferry
St. Manor will hold another neighborhood engagement meeting. Before
submitting for permits, Ferry St. Manor will submit the design to staff to review
conformance with the design attached to the MUPTE resolution (should City
Council approve the MUPTE). Staff will also give interested parties an
opportunity to review and comment on that final design.
3.A display ad soliciting recommendations or comments from the public regarding this project
was published in the Register-Guard on April 14, 2019. The period for comment expired on
May 14, 2019 and resulted in 21 written comments. Additional comments were submitted to
staff or directly to City Council after the official comment period. All 21 comments received as
of August 14 will be provided to City Council with the materials for the September 11 work
session.
Page 3 of 4
Report and Recommendation September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
4.The community member MUPTE Review Panel considered the project application, including
compliance with program criteria and the independent consultant's financial review, during 3
meetings held on May 29, July 10, and July 29. The majority of the Review Panel concluded that
the project meets the Required Public Benefit criteria. The Panel noted that Project Need
involves many variables that are hard to predict. The majority of the Panel concluded that
project need was demonstrated. Six of the panel members agreed that a ten-year exemption
was warranted. One member advocated for an eight-year exemption, another for a five-year
exemption, and one member advocated for no exemption. See the enclosed Panel Conclusions
document for a full summary of their conclusions.
Therefore, based upon the above findings, the project is, or will be at the time of completion, in
conformance with all applicable local plans and provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, planning
regulations, the Metropolitan Area General Plan, and the criteria set forth in the City's adopted
administrative rules, and I recommend that the application be approved conditioned upon the
project moving forward as proposed.
Dated this jj_ day of �7 ut;,± , 2019.
Denny Braud
Executive Director
Planning & Development Department
Page 4 of 4
Report and Recommendation September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Memorandum
Date: August 19, 2019
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Amanda D’Souza, Business Development Analyst
Subject: Financial Analysis Materials from Johnson Economics – Ferry St. Manor
The Ferry St. Manor project proforma and financial information was analyzed by Johnson Economics, an
independent real estate economics consultant. Johnson Economics conducted a pro forma evaluation of
the project’s viability with a review of assumptions including income, lease rates, operating costs,
permanent financing, construction costs, and return. The analysis was provided to the Review Panel in
advance of the first meeting and was discussed at the second meeting (Exhibit A). The Panel provided
questions to Johnson Economics to be addressed at the second meeting. The answers were provided to
the Panel in a memo dated June 4, 2019 (Exhibit B).
The Johnson Economics analysis concludes that the project would not be viable without the availability of
the MUPTE using the reasonable assumptions outlined and that “inclusion of the MUPTE over a ten-year
period would likely make this project viable.”
Attachment F
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
621 SW Alder, Suite 605 Portland, OR 97205 503/295-7832
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 15, 2019
TO: Amanda D’Souza
Business Development Analyst
CITY OF EUGENE
FROM: Jerry Johnson
JOHNSON ECONOMICS, LLC
SUBJECT: Review of MUPTE Application, RNS Management, LLC
Johnson Economics was asked to provide an independent review of an application for the City’s Multi-Unit Property Tax
Exemption (MUPTE). The application reviewed was submitted by RNS Management, LLC, and is based on a proposed
50-unit market rate apartment project on an infill site at 1040-1050 Ferry Street. The site would be created through
redevelopment of an overflow parking lot of an existing development that would remain adjacent to the proposed
project.
The MUPTE is a ten-year property tax exemption. The net impact of the program is a reduction in annual costs for the
period associated with property taxes, which provides a substantive boost to project viability. Our analysis included a
pro forma evaluation of the project’s viability with and without the MUPTE program. The information used in our
analysis was largely derived from materials submitted as part of the application. Appendix A includes a glossary of terms.
A.PROGRAM
The proposed development program for the site would include 50 rental apartment units, with an average annual rent
level of $1,224 in current dollars. This reflects an average annual per square foot rent level of $2.52.
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM AND PRICING (2019 $S)
The achievable rent levels assumed are quite high on a per square foot basis, and there is little precedent to support
the rent levels. The unit sizes are smaller than typical in the market though, which places the absolute rents in a more
competitive range. We view the rent assumptions to be very aggressive in this market.
# % Mix Size/SF Month PSF
Studios 35 70.0%449 $1,156 $2.57
One Bedroom 15 30.0%574 $1,384 $2.41
Two Bedroom 0 0.0%900 $0 $0.00
Total/Weighted Average 50 100.0%487 $1,224 $2.52
Units Proposed Rents*
Exhibit A to Attachment F
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
PAGE | 2
B.ASSUMPTIONS
Several assumptions must be made in order to evaluate the viability of the
development program. The applicant’s income assumptions are viewed as
aggressive but defensible within the downtown Eugene market. The
average residential lease rate is assumed at $1,224 per month, escalated
at an average annual rate of 2.5%. This assumption is pretty typical in
recent proformas we have seen, with annual income escalations assumed
at between 2.5 and 3.0%. Operating cost assumption at 38% for residential
uses with property taxes assumed and are within market norms for a
project of this scale with interior corridors. Permanent financing was
assumed at 5.50% for a thirty-year term and a debt coverage ratio (DCR)
of 1.20. This is somewhat aggressive, and a DCR of 1.25 may be required
by a lender. The return parameters used in our analysis to determine
viability are not impacted by the financing terms used.
Construction costs were derived from the application and reflect a total
cost of just over $8.274 million for the project. This reflects a per unit cost
of $165,500, which is below what we would expect in the current market.
The applicant is using a local contractor with extensive local experience,
and we are assuming the cost estimates are reliable.
C.VIABILITY OF PROJECT
Baseline Scenario
Our baseline scenario reflects the development program based
on the outlined assumptions and does not assume any benefit
from the MUPTE. The project would cost an estimated $8.275
million to develop, with a stabilized Net Operating Income (NOI)
of $437,720. The net operating income reflects income from
property after operating expenses have been deducted, but
before deducting income taxes and financing expenses.
Based on the revenue assumptions outlined the supportable debt
on the project would be $5.35 million, with required equity of
over $2.9 million. The applicant assumes they would contribute
20% equity, but under this scenario the projected net income of
the project would not support enough debt, increasing the
required equity contribution. A lending institution will typically use a debt coverage ratio (DCR) to calculate the amount
of supportable debt on a real estate project. For our analysis we assumed a DCR of 1.20, which ref lects net operating
income in the first stabilized year after taxes at 120% of the scheduled debt service payment. While achievable in some
cases, this is an aggressive assumption as DCR requirements will often be higher at 1.25 to 1.30.
When evaluating the viability of a project we use a series of financial return measures. The definition of these is included
as a glossary at the end of this memorandum. Individual developers vary with respect to which returns they use in
evaluating projects, so we include several alternative measures. The return on cost under the baseline scenario would
be 5.29%, with the leveraged return on equity at only 5.03%. The internal rate of return assuming a 10-year hold and
calculating the reversion value (sale of the asset at the end of the period) based on a terminal cap rate of 6.0% (the
capitalization rate used to calculate the value at sale) would be 10.5%.
Land Acquisition $592,416
Hard Costs
Construction $5,396,207
Other Cost/Contingency $903,005
Soft Costs
A&E $314,961
SDC $203,958
Development Fee $283,465
Interest $193,897
Loan Fees $64,632
Taxes $11,161
Marketing $65,000
Legal $25,000
Other Fees $96,248
Contingency $125,000
Total Development Costs $8,274,950
ASSUMED DEVELOPMENT COSTS
SOURCES Total %
Required Equity $2,921,344 35%
Serviceable Debt $5,353,606 65%
Total $8,274,950 100%
RETURN MEASURES Total
Development Costs $8,274,950
Stabilized NOI $437,720
Return on Cost 5.29%
Return on Equity 5.03%
IRR 10.5%
Targeted Return on Cost 6.50%
GAP $1,540,804
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
PAGE | 3
These returns are assumed to be below what would be necessary for the market to develop this project. Assuming a
targeted return on cost of 6.50%, the indicated viability gap as modeled would be $1.54 million without the MUPTE tax
abatement. We will typically use return on cost as our preferred measure for acceptable returns, as it is least subject to
variability in assumptions. The 6.50% used reflects a 100-basis point premium over an assumed current capitalization
rate of 5.5%. Using this assumption, the project is worth 118% of cost at stabilization if the development follows the
proforma projections.
The following is a 10-year simplified pro forma for the project. As noted, a reversion value was assumed at the end of
the period based on the projected NOI in year 11 divided by an assumed terminal cap rate of 6.0% and deducting the
remaining principal balance from the primary loan. Under this scenario the net residual value is projected at $7.0 million
at the end of year 10.
Based on these estimates and forecasts we would not consider the project to represent a viable development program
without the MUPTE program.
MUPTE Scenario
The second scenario uses the same income and expense assumptions as
the baseline scenario, with the addition of an assumed ten-year tax
exemption. The use of the MUPTE reduces operating costs significantly
during the first ten years (starting in year 1 in the cash flow table),
increasing cash flow available for debt service. With the increased cash
flow to cover debt service, the serviceable debt increases to $6.48
million, reducing the equity requirement to $1.79 million (22% of costs).
The return on cost at stabilization is estimated at 6.41%, just below the
targeted return on cost of 6.50%. This yields an indicated gap of
$120,188, or 1.4% of total cost. If a gap is this small relative to project
cost, we typically assume that it can be addressed through value engineering and program refinement, and therefore
we view the program to be viable under this assumption. The internal rate of return under this scenario is 15.8%, while
SIMPLIFIED CASH FLOW
10-YEAR CASH FLOW WO/MUPTE
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
REVENUE
Gross Rent Revenue $734,640 $734,640 $753,006 $771,831 $791,127 $810,905 $831,178 $851,957 $873,256 $895,088
Misc. & Commercial $13,270 $13,270 $13,602 $13,942 $14,290 $14,648 $15,014 $15,389 $15,774 $16,168
Less Vacancy ($166,799) ($37,396) ($38,330) ($39,289) ($40,271) ($41,278) ($42,310) ($43,367) ($44,451) ($45,563)
Total Income $581,111 $710,515 $728,277 $746,484 $765,146 $784,275 $803,882 $823,979 $844,578 $865,693
EXPENSES
Operating Expenses $155,587 $155,587 $159,477 $163,464 $167,550 $171,739 $176,032 $180,433 $184,944 $189,568
Insurance $5,114 $5,114 $5,242 $5,373 $5,507 $5,645 $5,786 $5,931 $6,079 $6,231
Admin & Management $40,901 $40,901 $41,924 $42,972 $44,046 $45,147 $46,276 $47,433 $48,618 $49,834
Utilities and Garbage $38,456 $38,456 $39,417 $40,403 $41,413 $42,448 $43,509 $44,597 $45,712 $46,855
Repairs & Maint.$58,205 $58,205 $59,660 $61,152 $62,680 $64,247 $65,854 $67,500 $69,187 $70,917
Marketing and Advertising $12,911 $12,911 $13,234 $13,565 $13,904 $14,251 $14,608 $14,973 $15,347 $15,731
Subtotal
NOI Before Taxes and Reserves $425,524 $554,928 $568,801 $583,021 $597,596 $612,536 $627,850 $643,546 $659,634 $676,125
Less Estimated Taxes 92,340 92,340 95,110 97,964 100,902 103,929 107,047 110,259 113,567 116,974
Less Required Reserves $24,868 $24,868 $25,490 $26,127 $26,780 $27,450 $28,136 $28,839 $29,560 $30,299
NOI Available for Debt Service $308,316 $437,720 $448,201 $458,930 $469,914 $481,157 $492,666 $504,448 $516,508 $528,852
Development Costs ($8,274,950)
1st Mortgage Debt Service (1.20 DCR, 5.5%, 30 yrs)$5,353,606 $294,448 $364,766 $364,766 $364,766 $364,766 $364,766 $364,766 $364,766 $364,766 $364,766
Equity $2,921,344
Net Cash Flow ($2,921,344)$13,868 $72,953 $83,435 $94,164 $105,147 $116,391 $127,900 $139,681 $151,741 $164,086
DCR - 1st Mortgage 1.05 1.20 1.23 1.26 1.29 1.32 1.35 1.38 1.42 1.45
SOURCES Total %
Required Equity $1,791,963 22%
Serviceable Debt $6,482,987 78%
Total $8,274,950 100%
RETURN MEASURES Total
Development Costs $8,274,950
Stabilized NOI $530,060
Return on Cost 6.41%
Return on Equity 9.92%
IRR 15.8%
Targeted Return on Cost 6.50%
GAP $120,188
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
PAGE | 4
the return on equity is 9.9%. While the project is considered viable, the indicated returns do not reflect a project
providing above-normal returns.
The following is a ten- year summary pro forma of the development assuming the MUPTE:
Under this scenario the net residual value is projected at $6.19 million at the end of year 10, reflecting a higher principal
payment due to the greater level of debt supported. When property taxes are introduced in year 11, the project is still
capable of meeting the debt service requirements of the primary loan due to assumed rates of escalation. The project
does provide adequate cash flow to refinance in later years to reduce the equity requirement. This would increase the
IRR but would not impact initial return on cost.
While the indicated return is adequate to induce development the first stabilized year, this does not account for the fact
that the exemption is of limited duration. An alternative approach to evaluate the impact of the MUPTE is to model the
impact as a discounted cash flow, with annual property tax savings discounted to current dollars at an 8.00% annual
rate. When this was done for the subject project, the current value of the abatement exemption was about $669,000.
The impact on the “viability gap” is $1.4 million, reflecting the ability of the abatement to reduce equity requirements
through the forecast period. The discount rate reflects the cost of capital to the developer, which is significantly higher
that that used by a public agency as the opportunity cost of that money is viewed as being higher.
SIMPLIFIED CASH FLOW
10-YEAR CASH FLOW W/MUPTE
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
REVENUE
Gross Rent Revenue $734,640 $734,640 $753,006 $771,831 $791,127 $810,905 $831,178 $851,957 $873,256 $895,088
Miscellaneous $13,270 $13,270 $13,602 $13,942 $14,290 $14,648 $15,014 $15,389 $15,774 $16,168
Less Vacancy ($166,799) ($37,396) ($38,330) ($39,289) ($40,271) ($41,278) ($42,310) ($43,367) ($44,451) ($45,563)
Total Income $581,111 $710,515 $728,277 $746,484 $765,146 $784,275 $803,882 $823,979 $844,578 $865,693
EXPENSES
Operating Expenses $155,587 $155,587 $159,477 $163,464 $167,550 $171,739 $176,032 $180,433 $184,944 $189,568
Insurance $5,114 $5,114 $5,242 $5,373 $5,507 $5,645 $5,786 $5,931 $6,079 $6,231
Admin & Management $40,901 $40,901 $41,924 $42,972 $44,046 $45,147 $46,276 $47,433 $48,618 $49,834
Utilities and Garbage $38,456 $38,456 $39,417 $40,403 $41,413 $42,448 $43,509 $44,597 $45,712 $46,855
Repairs & Maint.$58,205 $58,205 $59,660 $61,152 $62,680 $64,247 $65,854 $67,500 $69,187 $70,917
Marketing and Advertising $12,911 $12,911 $13,234 $13,565 $13,904 $14,251 $14,608 $14,973 $15,347 $15,731
Subtotal
NOI Before Taxes and Reserves $425,524 $554,928 $568,801 $583,021 $597,596 $612,536 $627,850 $643,546 $659,634 $676,125
Less Estimated Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Less Required Reserves $24,868 $24,868 $25,490 $26,127 $26,780 $27,450 $28,136 $28,839 $29,560 $30,299
NOI Available for Debt Service $400,656 $530,060 $543,311 $556,894 $570,816 $585,087 $599,714 $614,707 $630,074 $645,826
Development Costs ($8,274,950)
1st Mortgage Debt Service (1.20 DCR, 5.5%, 30 yrs)$6,482,987 $356,564 $441,716 $441,716 $441,716 $441,716 $441,716 $441,716 $441,716 $441,716 $441,716
Equity $1,791,963
Net Cash Flow ($1,791,963)$44,092 $88,343 $101,595 $115,178 $129,100 $143,370 $157,997 $172,990 $188,358 $204,110
DCR - 1st Mortgage 1.12 1.20 1.23 1.26 1.29 1.32 1.36 1.39 1.43 1.46
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
PAGE | 5
D.CONCLUSION
Our analysis indicates that the project would not be viable without availability of the MUPTE, using the assumptions
outlined. The indicated returns are below what we would consider adequate to incur the development risk for this
project. Inclusion of the MUPTE over a ten-year period would likely make this project viable.
The primary impact of the MUPTE program is a reduction in operating costs for a set period of time, which helps the
project meet the loan underwriting standards (1.20 DCR) and reduce the needed equity to an amount that can more
reasonably be attracted to the project. As summarized in the following graph, initial equity requirements are higher
without the MUPTE because the project cannot qualify for as much debt, and interim annual cash flows are lower. The
net gain from an assumed sale in year 15 is lower with the MUPTE, as a higher level of debt is assumed to be supportable.
Many of the assumptions used are reliant upon the information provided by the applicant, but this information appears
consistent with other projects we have reviewed. The pricing assumptions are aggressive, but the relatively small unit
sizes will help keep absolute rents affordable. The debt coverage ratio assumed was 1.20, which we feel could be a bit
low. The return parameter used to evaluate viability was return on cost (ROC), which is not influenced by the debt
coverage ratio assumption.
($4,000,000)
($2,000,000)
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11
PROJECT YEAR
PROJECTED DEVELOPER CASH FLOW
Without MUPTE
With MUPTE - 10 Year
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
PAGE | 6
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Capitalization Rate or Cap Rate – The rate of return used to derive the capital value of an income stream. The value of
a real estate asset is commonly set on the basis of dividing net operating income (NOI) by a capitalization rate.
Debt Coverage Ratio – Defined as net operating income divided by annual debt service. This measure is often used as
underwriting criteria for income property mortgage loans, and limits the amount of debt that can be borrowed.
Standard minimum debt coverage ratios would be in the 1.20 to 1.30 range. A debt coverage ratio of 1.20 indicates that
in your first year of stabilized occupancy, your net operating income (NOI, gross income less expenses) is equal to 120%
of your debt service requirements (principal and interest).
Equity – The interest or value that the owner has in real estate over and above the liens held against it.
Net Operating Income (NOI) – Income from property after operating expenses have been deducted, but before deducting
income taxes and financing expenses.
Return on Cost (ROC) – Net operating income in the initial year, divided by total project cost. This measure is also
commonly referred to as the going-in cap rate.
Return on Equity or Equity Yield Rate or Cash on Cash – The rate of return on the equity portion of an investment, taking
into account periodic cash flow. In this analysis, the return on equity represents the initial rate of return, and is defined
as the net cash flow after interest costs divided by the developer equity. It does not include payments towards principal
as interest costs.
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) – The internal rate of return is the true annual rate of earnings on an investment and equates
the value of cash returns with cash invested. It reflects projected net cash flows throughout the duration of the
investment period.
Terminal Capitalization Rate – The capitalization rate used to estimate the value of the asset at the end of the forecast
period, in this case used to calculate a reversion value of the property.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
621 SW Alder, Suite 605 Portland, OR 97205 503/295-7832
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 4, 2019
TO: Amanda D’Souza
Business Development Analyst
CITY OF EUGENE
FROM: Jerry Johnson
JOHNSON ECONOMICS, LLC
SUBJECT: Questions Regarding our Review of MUPTE Application, RNS Management, LLC
The MUPTE Review Panel has forwarded a series of questions regarding our review of the RNS Management
application. The following is our response to those questions.
1.Would you classify the proposed building as Luxury Metro, Class AA, Class A, Class B, or Class C?
The classification of projects varies widely between markets, and generally reflect the relative position of the
project vis-à-vis the competitive environment. I would view this project and location as a Class A or AA. Wh ile
assumed rent levels are at the top of the market, I am not sure that the location is among the best in the market.
2.Are commercial multifamily loan fixed interest rates from banks, life insurance companies and credit unions
currently in the range of 3.8% to 4.3%, for 5-year term, 30-year amortization loans greater than $5 million?
Permanent loan terms for rental apartment buildings are still quite favorable. For this project the construction
loan may carry a somewhat higher interest rate due to perceived risk in achieving the assumed pricing. A 30-year
fixed rate is only modestly higher than a five-year rate and is likely a better permanent loan decision in this
market. The following tables summarizes some recent rate quotes:
Fannie Mae Small Balance Apartment Loan - Rates Updated 06-04-2019
Loan Product Rate Amortization
5 Year Fixed 4.20%-4.79% Up to 30 years
7 Year Fixed 4.13%-4.70% Up to 30 years
10 Year Fixed 4.29%-4.83% Up to 30 years
15 Year Fixed 4.35%-4.88% 30 years
30 Year Fixed 4.85%-5.38% 30 years
55-80% LTV
Loan amounts from $1,000,000-$3 million - up to $5 million in major markets
Loan to value ratios up to 80% on purchases and 75% on refinances
Cash out refinances are acceptable
Pricing based on loan-to-value and debt service coverage ratio:
•Tier 2 - 75-80%/1.25x
•Tier 3 - 65%/1.35x
•Tier 4 – 55%/1.55x
Interest only loans are available
Step down and yield maintenance prepayment penalties
Nonrecourse loans are available
Fannie Mae Large Balance Apartment Loan - Rates Updated 06-04-2019
Exhibit B to Attachment F
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
PAGE | 2
Loan Product Rate Amortization
5 Year Fixed 4.00%-4.59% Up to 30 years
7 Year Fixed 3.93%-4.50% Up to 30 years
10 Year Fixed 4.09%-4.63% Up to 30 years
15 Year Fixed 4.15%-4.68% 30 years
30 Year Fixed 4.65%-5.18% 30 years
55-80% LTV
Loan amounts from $3 million and up
Loans available for apartment buildings, cooperatives, affordable housing, student housing, senior housing, and manufactured
home communities
Loan to value ratios up to 80% on purchases and 75% on refinances
Cash out refinances are acceptable
Pricing based on loan-to-value and debt service coverage ratio:
•Tier 2 - 75-80%/1.25x
•Tier 3 - 65%/1.35x
•Tier 4 – 55%/1.55x
Interest only loans are available
Step down and yield maintenance prepayment penalties
Nonrecourse loans are available
Principal borrower must meet credit, net worth, liquidity and experience requirements
Freddie Mac Small Balance Apartment Loan - Rates Updated 06-04-2019
Loan Product Rates (start as low as) Amortization
5 Year Fixed 4.11% Up to 30 years
7 Year Fixed 4.16% Up to 30 years
10 Year Fixed 4.26% Up to 30 years
Bank Apartment Mortgage Loan - Rates Updated 06-04-2019
Loan Product Rate Amortization
5 Year Fixed 4.25%-4.75% Up to 30 years
7 Year Fixed 4.30%-4.80% Up to 30 years
10 Year Fixed 4.50%-5.00% Up to 30 years
Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities Loan - Rates Updated 06-04-2019
Loan Product Rate Amortization
10 Year Fixed 4.33%-5.13% Up to 30 years
3.Are current interest rates trending down?
The answer to this question varies by the day but index rates such as treasuries, prime, and LIBOR have been
trending downward in 2019. With economic weakness expected in the next few years, rates will likely not face
much upward pressure. They are close to historic lows though, and there isn’t much room to drop either.
4.Are cap rates in the Eugene area for apartment/multifamily properties currently about 4.6 for Luxury Metro, 4.87
for Class A, 5.24 for Class B and 6.02 for Class C?
I am not that familiar with the Eugene market, but those cap rates are generally consistent with what we have
been seeing in Portland.
5.Have you, your firm or your prior firms worked on any projects involving Robert Bennett, Bennett Management
Company, or RNS Management?
No, as far as I know we haven’t worked for either Mr. Bennett or RNS Management.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
PAGE | 3
6.Were you aware that the development site is about 5-6 blocks from the University of Oregon campus, such that
student housing rental rates rather than downtown rates may apply?
Yes.
7.The applicant’s Project Cost Summary identifies Total Costs as $8,274,950, and Land Costs as $592,416. App at 44.
Costs exclusive of land are thus $7,682,534. The building square footage of the building is stated to be 31,195 sf
(App. at 8). Dividing costs by square footage results in costs of $246/sf. Are these square footage costs high?
Those costs are not that high in the current
market based on recent projects we have
reviewed. Construction cost escalation has been
very high in the last few years.
8.What is the current average 2019 cost per square foot for this type of apartment building in Eugene, Oregon, and
what are your sources? Do you have examples of the average cost per square foot from the Eugene market?
I don’t have Eugene data on costs, and they can vary significantly based on the details of the design and
construction type. Cost estimating is not in my area of expertise and we relied upon the applicants submitted
materials. If you feel an independent review of the cost estimates is warranted there are firms that specialize in
this.
9.Your report states that the total costs “reflect a per unit cost of $165,500, which is below what we would expect in
the current market.” What information do you rely on for this conclusion, and do you have examples of the per unit
cost of studio and 1BR apartments in the Eugene area, of the square footage proposed by the applicant?
While cost estimating is not my area of expertise, the delivered cost of units in the Portland area has been closer
to $200,000 per door in the last few years.
10.The proposed building seems well designed but fairly straight forward with no parking structure within the building,
wood frame construction, no mixed use, and close proximity to the University to be able to attract student
renters. What makes the proposed building unique such that it needs MUPTE for construction when other
multifamily buildings do not need MUPTE?
The assumed costs relative to rents are somewhat high. Costs have risen at a greater rate than achievable rents
over the last few years, altering the economics of new projects. I am not familiar with the financial assumptions or
performance of recent projects in the area, and therefore am not in a position to assess the marginal differences.
11.How do you account for other apartment buildings being built in Eugene without the need for MUPTE? What about
35 Club Road, 6 story building; Amazon Corner Apts, 5 story mixed use; 747 E. 32nd; 1 Chevy Chase Apts, 5 story,
3230 Kinsrow, etc.
I don’t have any details on the financials of those projects and have no basis to evaluate them.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
PAGE | 4
12.Are buildings like the proposed building being built in Oregon without a 10-year property tax exemption?
There are examples of similar developments being done without abatements, but abatements are common
outside of central Portland.
13.Is the Contractor overhead and profit normally included in Construction Hard Costs?
Yes
14.Do banks normally allow an entity which is both owner and developer (“owner/developer”) to claim a developer fee
as part of financing for construction costs for market rate multifamily housing construction? Do banks normally
finance developer fees for construction of market rate multifamily housing?
Banks allow developer fees in this context, and it is a usual practice. The lending limit will be driven by debt
coverage ratios, and the cost is only a factor in the loan if the resulting loan to cost ratio is too high.
15.Do developer fees normally arise in the context of affordable housing where the public or nonprofit owner is
compensating the developer for developing the housing where the developer does not own the development and
won’t have the opportunity to profit through ownership of the housing or where the profit is limited due to
substantial rent limitations?
Developer fees are usually charged whether the developer is part of the ownership group or hired to manage the
project. Managing the development process entails real expenses in terms of time and overhead dedicated to a
complicated process. Often within an ownership group a development fee will be charged to recognize these costs
prior to the distribution of any profits.
16.Are the rents in the pro forma in line with market rate rents in the West University neighborhood?
The rents are quite high relative to the existing product, but the proximity to the university probably justifies the
rent levels.
17.How did you calculate the serviceable debt, based on required equity?
The serviceable debt level is calculated based on a 1.20 debt coverage ratio. This just reflects that the net
operating income at stabilization is 120% or more of the debt service.
I hope this is helpful. Not all of the questions are within my area of expertise, particularly construction cost estimating.
While I cannot speak with any authority regarding the economics of the other projects discussed, my guess would be
that the primary difference in viability may be explained by marginal shifts in construction costs.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Written Comments on
Ferry St. Manor MUPTE Application
Received through August 26
(Official 30-day public comment period was April 14 through May 14)
Attachment G
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:ellen furstner
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:"No tax breaks for Ferry Street Manor"
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 1:36:06 PM
As a resident of Marcola who visits (and spends a good amount of my money) in Eugene for the past
34 years, I have noticed an increase in the deplorable condition of homelessness in the city. I have
volunteered in many organizations and events supporting homelessness solutions (Occupy Medical,
cleaning up camps, Highway 99 move, Egan Warming Center, etc.) and things are not getting any
better.
Eugene does not need any more high rent/upscale housing. Eugene needs to focus on low income
housing and caring for those left out on the streets. If the city is going to try and make Eugene more
palatable for tourists, and visitors to the track meets, I suggest you do something humane and show
the world what this city really is made of. Eugene has a reputation for being progressive and forward
thinking; people expect great things when they come to visit. So, give them that.
Instead of fancy, expensive housing and giving tax breaks to those who need it least, put your money
where the real need is, and work on that. Show your humane and caring side to the world.
FYI. Hiding the homeless for the future games is not going to work; it will be your worst nightmare to
come. Not a threat, just a fact.
Ellen Furstner
93995 Marcola Rd. Marcola, OR 97454
541-933-2246
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:Peter Knox
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:Ferry St Manor MUPTE
Date:Monday, May 13, 2019 12:04:34 PM
I am writing to say that I support this project and granting the MUPTE.
Pete Knox
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:Victoria Whitman
To:BERNARD Dana M
Cc:tiffanye@eugenechamber.com
Subject:Ferry St Manor’s Mupte application
Date:Monday, May 13, 2019 5:43:25 PM
I want to convey my support of the City working with the Bennetts by granting them Mupte. The project is an
excellent example of the program achieving its goals.
If their Mupte application is approved 50 units will be built downtown that would NOT happen otherwise. It will
provide rental homes within easy walking distances of downtown and campus. This project is owned by a family
who has contributed to our community for years and intends to remain a vital part of it. They personally care for
their investments and for our community. I hope the council will support the Bennetts in this undertaking.
Best Regards,
Victoria Whitman
Whitman Properties
Windermere Real Estate
541-954-7171
Sent from my iPhone
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
May 13, 2019
City of Eugene Planning and Development Department
Attention: Dana Bernard
99 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Dana Bernard:
I am writing to you in support of the Bennett Development Group’s (BDG) Ferry Street Manor MUPTE
application. As I’m sure you are aware, this project will support the City’s goals for more compact (read
vertical) housing in an area (downtown core) that is sorely in need of additional housing. Adding 50
units of high-quality, desirable, market-rate and work force housing in this area will provide relief to
Eugene’s extremely tight housing market and the project’s location near public transportation, food
markets, restaurants, entertainment is ideal for attracting residents.
Fiscally, approving the MUPTE for this project now will allow the City to realize significant tax revenue
over the life of the building when the exemption expires. My understanding is that the tax revenue to
be realized exceeds $9 MM. This is far in excess of the revenue on the existing parking lot on the site
and, without the assistance of the MUPTE, this site will surely remain a parking lot for an extended
period given that the increase in constructions costs over the last two years has been dramatic and is
one of the main reasons that a MUPTE is needed to allow this project to pencil out.
I’d also like to highlight that the applicant, BDG, is a known and respected local entity with an easily
discoverable track record of ethically-run projects, savvy business acumen, and community -spirited
leadership.
Finally, I understand that the proposed project meets or exceeds all the criteria established to
qualify for a MUPTE. This, combined with the tangible and intangible benef its listed above, should
make the decision an easy one. I encourage you to recommend in the strongest terms possible the
approval of the Ferry Street Manor MUPTE application.
Thank you;
Jerry Harris
Environmental Consultant, Ret.
500 E. 36th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97405
541 521-3966
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:Pamela Krause
To:BERNARD Dana M
Cc:P K
Subject:Ferry Street Manor
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 3:45:44 PM
Dear Ms Bernard,
i find that the proposed build of Ferry Street Manor will NOT serve most of
the Eugene Residents with less income.
Please refer to repeated testimony at City Council and Board of
Commissioners which identifies the danger zone income strata, in which
Lane County Residents not privileged to have housing within their means.
Personally, i was three days from not having housing last Summer; that
was the most rattling experience of my well-sustained life of 71 years.
So, I signed a one year lease for only i could find in my two month search,
which i could pay for: $730. + Electricity Cost per month; my income is
less than $1100 per month.
I invite you to please do the math.
Can we please look at options for housing to approve and invest in, which
are transitional, LOW income affordable and will provide better health, less
housing Classism and a more settled community?
I do not support approving Ferry Street Manor.
I appreciate your passing this on to the decider/voters.
Thank You,
Pamela Krause
764 Mill St #8, Springfield 97477
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:Steve Dear
To:BERNARD Dana M
Cc:Karl Eysenbach; zondie zinke
Subject:Ferry Street Manor MUPTE Application -- Against
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:58:38 PM
To City of Eugene
c/o Dana Bernard
Dear City of Eugene,
You recently approved the Olive Lofts. You recently approved the Gordon
Lofts. Is there any reason to assume you will not approve the Ferry Street
Manor MUPTE application? You seem poised to give a ten-year tax emption
to this developer with proposed rents over $1,000 for 449 sq. ft. studios
and $1,384/mo. for 574 sq. ft.
It’s graft. Is there anyone with a conscience in Eugene anymore? Is there
any functionality left at all? Could you please ostensibly do something
ethical towards to goal of actually reducing the poverty and homelessness
in our community?
You could start by denying this giveaway and using the tax funds towards
truly low-income housing.
“MUPTE robs ordinary citizens and small property owners so big time
developers can get major tax breaks! You pay because they don't have
to!” – Eugene’s Karl Eysenbach
Sincerely,
Stephen Dear
88865 Lois Ln.
Elmira, OR 97437
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:John Thielking
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:Ferry Street Manor MUPTE Comment
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 2:24:10 PM
Hello,
Please do not grant any kind of a tax break to the kind of market rate development represented
by the likes of the Ferry Street Manor. $1100/month for a studio apartment and $1340/month
for a 1br is outrageous and is not in any way affordable.
John Thielking
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:Reese Travers
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:Ferry Street Manor
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 2:26:12 PM
Dear Dana,
Please include this in the public testimony for the Ferry Street Manor MUPTE .
Projects like the proposed Ferry Street Manor keep the local building trades hard at work. Labor
wages are higher than they’ve ever been and it’s getting harder and harder to build when
construction costs are so high. The community wins in the long run when there is a way to get these
projects built, allowing the city to collect considerably more property tax revenue in the future.
Please support a full MUPTE for the Ferry Street Manor project. Thank you.
Reese Travers
Owner
Polaris Electrical, Inc.
P.O. Box 50295
Eugene, OR 97405
(541) 343-0824
rtravers@polariselectrical.com
www.polariselectrical.com
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:Darcy Phillips
To:BERNARD Dana M
Cc:Tiffany Edwards
Subject:Ferry Street Manor: MUPTE
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:51:02 AM
Attachments:image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
image014.png
image015.png
Hello Dana,
I’m writing to encourage the support of the Ferry Street Manor MUPTE application. This project
meets the criteria use to determine MUPTE qualifications and will promote a vibrant downtown.
The Ferry Street Manor will add 50 additional housing units to the downtown core, where there is
currently a significant need. Additionally, this project will create 9 million dollars in additional tax
revenue over the next 50 years.
The Bennett development group has a longstanding history in Eugene and are proven partners who
manage and develop quality projects that enhance our community. Without the approval of MUPTE,
this project will likely not be feasible and Eugene will lose the opportunity to add additional housing
stock in downtown.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Darcy Phillips
Darcy Phillips
Executive Director
Cell: 541.521.5571
Office: 541.683.1751 ext. 105
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:John and Peggy Doty
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:Ferry Street Manor"s MUPTE application
Date:Monday, May 13, 2019 7:24:53 PM
Good Evening Ms. Bernard,
I am writing in support of the Ferry Street Manor’s MUPTE application.
As I continue to gain knowledge about affordable and work-force housing, I have come to the
conclusion that these projects often need some support offered by programs like MUPTE.
This is even more critical with the rising costs of construction and development, and the funding
requirements by lenders.
The Bennett family has been investing in our community for many years providing housing,
commercial space, and jobs.
Who better to use the MUPTE program…
John Doty
Ward 8
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:SELSER Lindsay R
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:FW: Support: Ferry Street Manor / MUPTE
Date:Tuesday, April 30, 2019 1:49:12 PM
MUPTE email
From: Thomas Pettus-Czar <thomas@thebarnlightbar.com>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 11:40 AM
To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <MayorCouncilandCityManager@eugene-
or.gov>
Subject: Support: Ferry Street Manor / MUPTE
Hello All,
I'm writing this letter in support of the MUPTE application for the Ferry Street Manor project at 1040
Ferry St. At this time, I'm supportive of just about any project that creates additional housing in our
community and the tools available to make it happen. Beyond that, I'm encouraged by the possibility
that this project may strengthen the connection between campus and downtown.
Thank you for your consideration and the work that you all do.
Best,
Thomas
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:Michael DeLuise
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:In support of the Ferry Street MUPTE application
Date:Monday, May 13, 2019 12:49:09 PM
Dear Dana. The Downtown Neighborhood Association supports the MUPTE application being made by the Bennett
Corporation on behalf of their proposed Ferry Street Manor Project.
We like this project very much. The 50 much needed new residences, along with the millions of tax dollar revenue
that will be added, make this well planned addition to our community essential. The DNA encourages the City to
utilize the MUPTE program to help make this dream of community strength a reality.
Please keep us informed of the progress of the application and let us know what else we can do to help move it
forward as smoothly as possible.
Thank you,
Michael DeLuise
Chair, Downtown Neighborhood Association
251 West Broadway #171
Eugene, OR 97401
Cell: 631-513-6719
deluisem@me.com
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:Stephanie Larsen
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:MUPTE for Ferry Street Manor
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:55:43 PM
NO!
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
May 13, 2019
Mayor and City Councilors
City of Eugene
Eugene, Oregon
RE: Ferry Street Manor MUPTE
Dear Mayor and City Councilors:
Thank you for taking a moment to read this opinion about supporting the MUPTE Application for the Ferry
Street Manor project that is proposed by the Bennett family.
You don’t need me to enumerate the extra costs associated with development in the Downtown, or to
even talk about the cost of the land or the higher risk to the developer to see that no matter the reason,
housing has not been built at any level Downtown that would have an impact on the shortage.
The younger people that are employed by our office often ask why there is no place for them to live
Downtown. Their desire is urban living, not living in single family homes with property. These very same
people bring life to our Downtown and support the small businesses (i.e. entertainment, food, retail) that
also bring a level of welcome activity to our streets.
There really is no time like the present for supporting this application. The city of Eugene is currently
experiencing a severe lack of housing, especially in the Downtown area. One only needs to try and name
housing projects that have been built in the core of the city in anyone’s recent memory to realize that
there needs to be financial support for these types of projects.
The Bennetts are a local family with aspirations to continue to support and contribute to our community.
More housing will do just that. The Bennett’s project is worthy of all of our support and I urge you to vote
to approve their MUPTE application.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Schirmer Satre Group
Carol Schirmer
Principal
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:Andrew Otis Haschemeyer
To:BERNARD Dana M
Cc:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
Subject:No on MUPTE
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 1:14:02 PM
Dear Dana Bernard,
I do not support a Multi-Unit Tax Exemption for Ferry St. Manor. I would like to see an end to the MUPTE program
entirely.
Thank you,
Otis Haschemeyer
Eugene, OR 97402
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:zondie zinke
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:No on MUPTE
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 12:20:16 PM
Dear Dana Bernard,
I do not support the MUPTE program for Ferry Street Manor. I would like to see the MUPTE program ended
entirely.
We should not subsidize market rate housing.
Thank you,
Zondie Zinke
Eugene, OR
Sent from my iPhone
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:Todd Boyle
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:Opposing MUPTE grant to Ferry Street Manor
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 12:43:02 PM
I oppose MUPTE tax exemptions on Ferry Street Manor, or any other
project that is not aimed at the lowest income people, in most need
(the first and second deciles of income)
There's 20% of this city living on less than $1000/ month and they
can't afford the Ferry St Manor or any other construction currently
being done here in Eugene. They can afford $350/ month or less, and
the equivalent capital cost is $50,000 per unit, not $300,000 per
unit like this current middle-class housing project.
The money is more badly needed for lower income people.
No public money should be going to the 3rd and 4th deciles of income
until the first decile has housing security.
Right now they are being continually displaced. and causing big
expenses as homeless. Come to your senses, Eugene!
ToddFBoyle@gmail.com 2971 Alder St., Eugene, OR 97405
http://www.youtube.com/user/ToddBoyle/videos
http://www.facebook.com/toddfboyle (541) 337-6681
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:Tenille Woodward
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:Please support MUPTE for Ferry Street Manor
Date:Friday, May 10, 2019 3:23:13 PM
Hello,
I am writing in support of using MUPTE for the Ferry Street Manor project. More housing downtown is badly needed, and 15 of these units are designated as
living wage/moderate income units, which is huge. In addition, without MUPTE this piece of property will remain a parking lot and the city will lose out on
$9,000,000 in property taxes over the next 50 years. Please support this application which lines up with the goals of Envision Eugene in terms of increasing
density and development in our core and near transit lines.
Thank you,
Tenille Woodward, CPA, CPC
Pension Planners Northwest
1600 Valley River Drive, Ste. 340
Eugene, OR 97401
twoodward@ppnw.net
Direct Dial Phone (541) 852-4880
Direct Dial Fax (541) 852-4881
Main Phone (541) 345-8404
www.ppnw.net
OUR EXPERTISE. OUR OVERSIGHT. YOUR PEACE OF MIND.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you have received this email in error, please notify
the sender and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:Liz Cawood
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:Support for Ferry Street Manor MUPTE applicatoin
Date:Friday, May 10, 2019 2:36:42 PM
The need for housing in the downtown area is well-known. The Bennett’s proposal to build on
property they’ve owned for years provides housing in a very walkable area close to
downtown. It is also well-served by transit and bike lanes.
This development will make good use of space that has historically been a parking lot by
converting it into 50-unit apartment building that includes workforce housing. Certainly, the
project meets MUPTE criteria, while supporting compact urban growth.
The Bennett family has a long-history of managing residential properties in our area; they take
a long-term approach and build to hold, not to sell. That ensures quality construction, as well
as a long-term commitment to the well-being of our community.
I salute the Bennett family for proposing a way to increase downtown housing and support the
MUPTE application for Ferry Street Manor.
Liz Cawood, APR, President
541.484.7052, Ext. 1
1200 High Street, Suite 200
Eugene, OR 97401
Facebook | CAWOOD.com
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:Tiffany Edwards
To:BERNARD Dana M
Cc:Tiffany Edwards
Subject:Support for Ferry Street Manor
Date:Monday, May 13, 2019 6:22:40 PM
To Whom it May Concern,
I’m writing on behalf of my employer, the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce to convey support for
the multi-unit property tax exemption application for Ferry Street Manor apartments.
The Eugene Chamber continues to support building all types of housing, especially workforce
housing, in our community. Furthermore, the Chamber supports the city’s climate goals,
transportation planning goals, and density within the downtown core and this project strongly
supports progress in those efforts.
The developer, Bennett Management Company, is family owned and managed and has been for
over 50 years. Their dedication to investing in the community has been demonstrated, as has their
commitment to creating housing for current and future residents of Eugene.
The Eugene Chamber of Commerce strongly supports granting the multi-unit property tax
exemption for this project and asks for your support as well.
Kind regards,
Tiffany Edwards
Director of Business Advocacy
Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce
541.242.2352 w
541.678.3370 c
Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | LinkedIn
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
1
,
2
0
1
9
,
W
o
r
k
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
–
I
t
e
m
1
From:SELSER Lindsay R
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:FW: MUPTE for Bennett Mgmt
Date:Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:44:59 AM
From: SELSER Lindsay R
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:28 AM
To: CAMP Allison K <ACamp@eugene-or.gov>; D'SOUZA Amanda M <ADSouza@eugene-or.gov>; NOBEL FLANNERY Amanda <ANobelFlannery@eugene-
or.gov>
Cc: KINNISON Michael J <MKinnison@eugene-or.gov>
Subject: FW: MUPTE for Bennett Mgmt
From: Tenille Woodward <twoodward@ppnw.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 5:55 PM
To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <MayorCouncilandCityManager@eugene-or.gov>
Subject: MUPTE for Bennett Mgmt
I am writing to ask you to support the MUTPE application for the new apartment building proposed for East 11th and Ferry St. We need more housing
downtown and this location is ideally located near transit lines. Not to mention the increase in property taxes to the city after the 10 year period has ended.
This is not student housing and it is a perfect vehicle for MUPTE – creating development where otherwise none would occur.
Thank you,
Tenille Woodward, CPA, CPC
Pension Planners Northwest
1600 Valley River Drive, Ste. 340
Eugene, OR 97401
twoodward@ppnw.net
Direct Dial Phone (541) 852-4880
Direct Dial Fax (541) 852-4881
Main Phone (541) 345-8404
www.ppnw.net
OUR EXPERTISE. OUR OVERSIGHT. YOUR PEACE OF MIND.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you have received this email in error, please notify
the sender and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:SELSER Lindsay R
To:CAMP Allison K; D"SOUZA Amanda M; NOBEL FLANNERY Amanda; BERNARD Dana M
Cc:KINNISON Michael J
Subject:FW: Ferry Street Manor
Date:Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:33:27 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Sue Prichard <sue@prichardpartners.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 3:34 PM
To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <MayorCouncilandCityManager@eugene-or.gov>
Subject: Ferry Street Manor
Dear Mayor Vinis, City Manager and Eugene City Councilors,
I am writing to express my complete support for granting the MUPTE to the Ferry Street Manor project. This is
exactly the kind of project we want and need in our central core and the location creates no negative impacts in the
area.
I hope you, too, will support this request.
Sue Prichard
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:SELSER Lindsay R
To:CAMP Allison K; D"SOUZA Amanda M; NOBEL FLANNERY Amanda; BERNARD Dana M
Cc:KINNISON Michael J
Subject:FW: Ferry Street Manor
Date:Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:30:00 AM
From: Kali Kardas <kalikardas@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 9:59 PM
To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <MayorCouncilandCityManager@eugene-
or.gov>
Subject: Ferry Street Manor
Hello City of Eugene,
I am writing as a resident of downtown in support of passing MUPTE approval for the Ferry Street
Manor project.
I believe it is extremely important to our community to increase the urban density. The less we have
to travel to work and the closer we are to downtown businesses, the more we can keep reducing
carbon emissions while supporting our local economy.
From personal experience, I am tired of people who say they don't come downtown. There is so
much entertainment and food and life happening and I would love to see it continue to grow and
thrive. Not to mention housing is already very stressed in this area.
Please vote yes. Thank you.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
From:SELSER Lindsay R
To:BERNARD Dana M
Subject:FW: Ferry Street Manor MUPTE Request
Date:Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:45:09 AM
From: SELSER Lindsay R
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:22 AM
To: CAMP Allison K <ACamp@eugene-or.gov>; D'SOUZA Amanda M <ADSouza@eugene-or.gov>;
NOBEL FLANNERY Amanda <ANobelFlannery@eugene-or.gov>
Cc: KINNISON Michael J <MKinnison@eugene-or.gov>
Subject: FW: Ferry Street Manor MUPTE Request
FYI…who is tracking the MUPTE emails?
From: Andy Vobora <andyduck51@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 5:08 PM
To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <MayorCouncilandCityManager@eugene-
or.gov>
Subject: Ferry Street Manor MUPTE Request
[EXTERNAL ⚠]
I strongly support approval of the multi-unit property tax exemption for the development of the
Ferry Street Manor project. Eugene is struggling to add enough multi-family housing and this project
helps fill this need. With the lending environment these types of projects won't get built without a
tax exemption. Taking the long view is important and the long view results in no loss in current tax
receipts and millions of dollars of tax receipts once the exemption period ends. All while supporting
needed housing.
I've heard an argument, against granting the exemption, that the property's location near the
University means this is simply another student housing complex. I think this argument lacks merit.
Students live throughout the community and no one can be excluded from choosing a rental unit
that meets their needs if they meet the criteria of the housing development.
The size and character of this development seems to be a good fit for the community. Unlike the
challenges faced when trying to get higher densities in neighborhoods like south Willamette Street.
Let's take wins when we can get them and make a move toward achieving the densities the city
desires. Plus, it's right on high capacity transit line and is within walking distance of downtown and
the new Riverfront development. Seems like a win all the way around.
Please support MUPTE for Ferry Street Manor
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
--
Andy Vobora
232 Chimney Rock Lane
Eugene, OR 97404
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Resolution - Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MULTIPLE-UNIT PROPERTY TAX
EXEMPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1040 AND
1050 FERRY STREET, EUGENE, OREGON (APPLICANT RNS
MANAGEMENT, LLC).
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.RNS Management, LLC (980 Willamette Street, Suite 200, Eugene, Oregon), is the
owner of real property located at 1040 and 1050 Ferry Street, Eugene, Oregon (Assessor’s Map
Number 17-03-32-23 Tax Lots 9400 and 9500) (“the Property”).
B.RNS Management, LLC (“the applicant”) submitted an application pursuant to the
City’s Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption Program (Sections 2.945 through 2.947 of the
Eugene Code, 1971 (“EC”)), with respect to residential units to be constructed on the property
(“the project”).
C.The proposed project consists of the development of 35 studio units and 15 one-
bedroom units, for a total of 50 residential units. As proposed, the project is not designed for the
leasing of individual rooms or beds, for transient or vacation uses, or otherwise designed primarily
for individuals attending college.
D.An independent outside professional consultant was retained and reviewed the
project’s financial pro-forma. A Review Panel was convened and reviewed the independent
consultant’s conclusions, and also reviewed the application in order to make a recommendation as
to whether the application met the criteria in EC 2.946. The Review Panel’s recommendation was
submitted for the City Manager’s review.
E.After considering the Review Panel’s conclusions and recommendation, the
Executive Director of the Planning and Development Department (“the Executive Director”) as
designee of the City Manager, prepared the Report and Recommendation attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The Report and Recommendation
sets forth findings demonstrating that the project meets the criteria described in EC 2.946 and the
conditions set forth in Multiple-Unit Housing Property Tax Exemption Rule R-2.945 (“Rule R-
2.945”).
F.Based on the findings in the Report and Recommendation, the Executive Director
recommends that the application be approved and the exemption granted. In making that
recommendation, the Executive Director found that the applicant submitted all materials,
documents, and fees required by EC 2.945, EC 2.946, and Rule R-2.945, and the applicant is in
compliance with the policies contained therein.
Attachment H
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Resolution - Page 2 of 5
G. City Council has concluded that the application meets the criteria described in EC
2.946 and Rule R-2.945.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1. Based upon the above findings which are adopted, and upon the City Council’s
review of the Report and Recommendation of the Executive Director of the Planning and
Development Department attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
reference, the City Council approves the application of RNS Management, LLC for an ad valorem
property tax exemption under the City’s Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption Program for the
residential units to be constructed at 1040 and 1050 Ferry Street, Eugene, Oregon (Assessor’s Map
Number 17-03-32-23 Tax Lots 9400 and 9500), subject to the following conditions:
1.1 Compact Urban Development. The project will consist of the development of 35
studio units and 15 one-bedroom units, for a total of 50 residential units, none of
which may be used for transient use or vacation occupancy. The Property is located
in the R-4 High Residential Zone, which requires a density of at least 20 units per
acre and a maximum of 112 units per acre. The applicant will develop 50 dwelling
units on the property which will result in a density of 103 units per acre and which
meets the requirements of section 1.1.1.1 of Rule R-2.945-C. The development
will be constructed in accordance with the schematic drawing showing the site plan
and major features and dimensions of the proposed development, and schematic
drawings showing side, front, and back elevations of the proposed development
which are attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B.
1.2 Green Building. The project will perform at least 10% more efficiently than the
performance established in the Oregon Energy Efficiency Specialty Code.
Applicant will provide to the City of Eugene’s Building and Permit Services an
energy model with applicant’s permit application.
Within 18 months after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall
submit to the City a commissioning report pursuant to Section 1.2 of Rule R-2.945-
C demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
For the duration of the tax exemption, RNS Management, LLC will report multi-
family occupancy energy use data to the City of Eugene’s Building and Permit
Services.
The project’s on-site parking will include installation of conduit for future electric
vehicle charging stations.
1.3 Local Economic Impact Plan and Compliance with Laws. The applicant submitted
a plan demonstrating that more than 50% of the dollar volume of professional
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Resolution - Page 3 of 5
services and construction contracts will be from a business organization or
individual residing or doing business primarily in Lane County. After construction,
the applicant will submit a list of the home city or zip code of the construction labor
workers.
RNS Management, LLC will ensure that qualified minority and women business
enterprises have been given an equitable opportunity to compete for development
related contracts by: (1) accessing lists of such enterprises from the Oregon State
Office of Minority, Women and Emerging Small Business Program website; (2)
search for Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities from whom to procure products and
services via the Oregon State Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities Program website;
and (3) advertise in general circulation, trade association, and minority focused
media about prime subcontracting opportunities.
The applicant will post information about the City’s Rights Assistance Program in
English and Spanish on the job site during construction of the project.
The applicant shall ensure that the developer, its contractors and subcontractors
comply with wage, tax and licensing laws.
The applicant will have in place methods for ensuring that all contractors
performing work are licensed and performing in compliance with state law.
The applicant will provide the City’s Building and Permits Services Department
with a list of all contractors performing work on the project. Prior to performing
work on the project, contractors must have valid, current licensing, insurance,
bonding and workers compensation coverage, and be on the list of contractors
provided to the City.
The applicant will require that each contractor provide an affidavit attesting to the
fact that (1) the contractor, owner, or responsible managing individual for the
contractor does not have any unpaid judgments for construction debt, including
unpaid wages; and (2) the contractor is in compliance with Oregon tax laws.
1.4 Moderate-Income Housing Contribution. The applicant will include 15 moderate
income studio housing units (30% of the total number of units) with rents less than
or equal to 30% of Area Median Income as defined in Rule R-2.945-A.
1.5 Project Design and Compatibility.
The applicant shall adhere to the following design elements, as well as the actual
square footages included in Exhibit B unless the City Manager approves a deviation
from the plan pursuant to EC 2.946(2)(e)2:
The design elements of the building include a south facing lobby entry with
abundant glazing. A prominent elevator tower provides accent against
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Resolution - Page 4 of 5
symmetrically proportioned bays punctuated with large windows. High quality,
durable materials include, ground face CMU, stucco, and metal wall panel cladding
over a wood framed structure. The cladding is accented with colored and matte
finish metal detailing.
During the design process and before the final design drawings are completed, the
owner shall hold at least one neighborhood engagement opportunity to allow
members of the West University neighborhood and others to provide comments on
the proposal. At least one of the applicant’s principals shall attend that meeting.
After the final design is completed and before it is submitted for permits, the final
design shall be submitted to the City to review for conformance with the design
approved by this resolution. The neighborhood shall also have an opportunity to
review and comment on the final design. After the comment period, the City shall
determine if the design is consistent with the requirements of this Resolution, and
if not, whether the City Manager will approve a deviation pursuant to EC 2.946.
1.6 At the time of completion, the project shall conform with all local plans and
planning regulations, including special or district-wide plans developed and
adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 195, 196, 197, 215, and 227 that are applicable
at the time the application is approved.
1.7 During all phases of development, the project shall comply with wage, tax and
licensing laws.
1.8 The project shall not contain any units for transient use or vacation occupancy.
1.9 The project will be completed on or before January 1, 2022, unless an extension of
the deadline is requested by the property owner and approved by Council resolution
pursuant to EC 2.947(5).
1.10 The public benefits of the project that will extend beyond the period of the tax
exemption include Green Building (energy performance), Project Design and
Compatibility, and Compact Urban Development.
Section 2. Subject to the conditions in Section 1 of this Resolution, 100% of the
residential units described in Section 1 are declared exempt from local ad valorem property
taxation beginning July 1 of the year following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and
continuing for a continuous period of ten years unless earlier terminated in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2.947 of the Eugene Code, 1971.
Section 3. The City Manager, or the Manager’s designee, is requested to forward a
copy of this Resolution to the applicant within ten days, and to cause a copy of this Resolution to
be filed with the Lane County Assessor on or before April 1, 2020.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
Resolution - Page 5 of 5
Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing Resolution adopted and effective the ____ day of _________, 2019.
____________________________________
City Recorder
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
of the Planning & Development Department
Ferry St. Manor Application for Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption
The Executive Director of the Planning & Development Department of the City of Eugene Finds
that:
1.The Ferry St. Manor apartments will be developed on real property located at 1040 and 1050
Ferry St., Eugene, Oregon (Assessor's Map #17-03-32-23, tax lots 09400 and 09500). RNS
Management, LLC is the current owner of the subject property. RNS Management, LLC
submitted an application pursuant to the City's Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption
("MUPTE") Program (Sections 2.945 and 2.947 of the Eugene Code, 1971), with respect to
residential units to be constructed on the property.
2.As the City Manager's designee, I have reviewed the application and find that:
2.1 The project will provide 35 studio units and 15 one-bedroom units, for a total of 50
residential units, none of which will be used for transient use or vacation occupancy.
There is no commercial space in the building.
2.2 The project is not designed to be student housing, meaning it will be leased by the unit
(rather than by individual rooms or beds) and the unit configuration does not include
several bedrooms with individual bathrooms and sparse common space or include
amenities and location selected primarily for individuals attending college and offer
limited viability as potential housing for the general population. Additionally, the
project does not designate any of the units for transient use or vacation occupancy.
2.3 Construction is expected to be complete on or before January 1, 2022.
2.4 The project is located in the downtown area described in subsection (1) of Section
2.946 of the Eugene Code, 1971.
2.5 The applicant submitted all materials, documents and fees required by the City as set
forth in Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and the administrative rules adopted
by Administrative Order No. 53-18-03-F.
2.6 The applicant responded to the Required Public Benefit criteria as follows:
2.6.1 Compact Urban Development. The project will be built in the R-4 High Density
Residential zone, which requires at least 20 housing units per acre and a
maximum of 112 units per acre. Ferry St. Manor includes 50 dwelling units that
would result in a density of 103 units per acre which is more than 175% of
minimum density as required by section 1.1.1.1 of Rule R-2.945-C.
2.6.2 Green Building Features. The project will utilize the City of Eugene Building
and Permit Services Pathway in order to meet the MUPTE green building
requirement and exceed the 10% energy efficiency threshold. Ferry St. Manor
Report and Recommendation --Page 1 of 4
Resolution Exhibit A
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
will be required to submit an energy model with their development permit
application and a commissioning report due 18 months after certificate of
occupancy is issued. The project's on-site parking will include installation of
conduit for future electric vehicle charging stations.
2.6.3 Local Economic Impact Plan. A plan is in place for more than 50% of the
project's dollar volume of professional services and construction contracts to
be local to Lane County (estimated at 67%). The applicant is committed to
promoting open competitive opportunities for Minority, Women, and
Emerging Small Businesses, and is committed to complying with wage, tax, and
licensing laws.
2.6.4 Moderate-Income Housing Contribution. The project will provide a minimum
of 30% of the residential units (15 units) with rents that qualify as moderate
income units during the MUPTE period. (Moderate income is defined in the
ordinance as affordable to households at 100% of the area median income.)
2.6.5 Project Design and Compatibility. The project will address basic design
concepts in the context of the project location and will be designed and
permitted for construction as shown in the resolution ( should City Council
approve the MUPTE). The basic design concepts include: the scale, form, and
quality of the building; the mix of project elements; the relationship to the
street and surrounding uses; and parking and circulation.
The building is being constructed as an infill addition on an existing developed
site. The lot includes an existing residential building that will provide scale and
proportion for the infill project. The new building is five floors of residential
use providing 50 units of both market rate and moderate-income units. Placed
at the back of the lot, neither the building nor the site has street frontage. The
south facing lobby provides a highly visible connection to site circulation.
The design elements of the building include a lobby entry with abundant
glazing. A prominent elevator tower provides accent against symmetrically
proportioned bays punctuated with large windows. High quality, durable
materials include, ground face CMU, stucco, and metal wall panel cladding over
a wood framed structure. The cladding is accented with colored and matte
finish metal detailing.
The building meets City requirements for vehicle parking and bicycle parking,
and it provides pedestrian accommodations to access the site and surrounding
street grid through internal pedestrian paths and an access gate to Ferry Alley.
The project design is intended to harmonize with the scale, form and quality of
onsite and adjacent development. The project meets the design intent of
designing for the human scale, appropriate to the local climate and natural
Page 2 of4
Report and Recommendation September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
resiliency, promote transparency, help define a sense of place, fit the
neighborhood, and employ high-quality materials and color.
2.6.6 Historic and Existing Housing Sensitivity. The project is adjacent to one
historic locale, but it is not affected by the Ferry St. Manor redevelopment. The
project includes no direct, structural impacts, such as alterations or
demolitions, to any of the identified resources. No historic structures or
existing housing were demolished or removed from the property in the 2 years
prior to the date of application.
2.6.7 Project Need. The project's pro-forma and financial information was analyzed
by Johnson Economics, an independent, real estate economics consultant who
found that the project as proposed could not be built but for the benefit of the
tax exemption. The financial information Ferry St. Manor submitted in their
application is based on projections prior to finalizing financing, construction,
and tenanting. It includes assumptions regarding rents, vacancy rates,
operating costs, lender underwriting criteria, interest rates, and reasonable
rate of return. Johnson Economics, the Review Panel, and staff reviewed the
assumptions. The Johnson Economics analysis concludes that the project
would not be viable without the availability of the MUPTE, using the
reasonable assumptions outlined and concludes that MUPTE is critical to the
success of the project from a financial feasibility perspective. See Section 4
below for the Review Panel's conclusions.
2.6.8 Public Benefit beyond Period of Exemption. The publ ic benefits of the project that
will ext end beyond the period of the tax exempt ion include Green Building ( energy
performance), Project Design and Compatibility, and Compact Urban
Development .
2.7 A neighborhood engagement meeting on Ferry St. Manor was held on December 18,
2018. As the West University Neighborhood is not currently active, the applicant
provided notice of the meeting to adjacent property owners and tenants.
2.7.1 Future Neighborhood Engagement. Prior to completing final drawings, Ferry
St. Manor will hold another neighborhood engagement meeting. Before
submitting for permits, Ferry St. Manor will submit the design to staff to review
conformance with the design attached to the MUPTE resolution (should City
Council approve the MUPTE). Staff will also give interested parties an
opportunity to review and comment on that final design.
3.A display ad soliciting recommendations or comments from the public regarding this project
was published in the Register-Guard on April 14, 2019. The period for comment expired on
May 14, 2019 and resulted in 21 written comments. Additional comments were submitted to
staff or directly to City Council after the official comment period. All 21 comments received as
of August 14 will be provided to City Council with the materials for the September 11 work
session.
Page 3 of 4
Report and Recommendation September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
4.The community member MUPTE Review Panel considered the project application, including
compliance with program criteria and the independent consultant's financial review, during 3
meetings held on May 29, July 10, and July 29. The majority of the Review Panel concluded that
the project meets the Required Public Benefit criteria. The Panel noted that Project Need
involves many variables that are hard to predict. The majority of the Panel concluded that
project need was demonstrated. Six of the panel members agreed that a ten-year exemption
was warranted. One member advocated for an eight-year exemption, another for a five-year
exemption, and one member advocated for no exemption. See the enclosed Panel Conclusions
document for a full summary of their conclusions.
Therefore, based upon the above findings, the project is, or will be at the time of completion, in
conformance with all applicable local plans and provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, planning
regulations, the Metropolitan Area General Plan, and the criteria set forth in the City's adopted
administrative rules, and I recommend that the application be approved conditioned upon the
project moving forward as proposed.
Dated this jj_ day of �7 ut;,± , 2019.
Denny Braud
Executive Director
Planning & Development Department
Page 4 of 4
Report and Recommendation September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
..,.,. ..
' ' '
Total BuildingArea Increase:
Existing
Buildings: 56,694
Buildings: 14,949 sqft
Proposed
Building: 31,195
Total of All Buildings: 87,899
Lot Coverage Areas
Parlcing: 24, 166 sqft:
Open Soace:· 9;,79 sqft:
Percentage Increase: 55%
( 10,353 sqft: w/ Roof Deck)
PROPOSED BUILDING sou.irrs- R-2 acc. 6.582 SQFl fOOfPRJNT
10' 20' 40'
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
FERRY STREET MANOR
MUPTE Application
20 March 20 19
-----1
I iI iI I •
17
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 5
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
3:
,, m ;:x:J
�
c en
t--J -0 -I 0 --4 3: m ;;t1
� )> m ::r-o m
t--J "'"O � n· -I � o· �
:J )>
z 0
;;c
WEST ELEVATION
METAL ROOF PANELS ---������FINISH
1------METALSOfflTPAl'.IB..S
WI KYNAR 500 MATIE FINISH
1------sruccOFINISl-I
--���-
o------S'T\JCCOF1NISH
r------ME11\LWAL.LPANa.s
WI KYNAR 500 MATTE ANISH
J't.+4?-6"
l.JilJfFTHFLOOR
------METAL.FLASHINGWT
KYNAA 500 MATTE FINISH
--���FLOOR
>------TAYLOR METAL CB
�TOUR SERIES"
WALL PANEl.SW/ KYNAR 500 MATIE Fl�H
61-+21'-6"
---�IROFLOOR ----METAL l/\'INOOWTRIMW/
KYNAA 500 MATTE FINISl-'I
1------1.AYERIDMETAL TIUM
WI KYNAR 500 MATTE FINISH
E-,.+11'.Q" \;�d:>N;) FloOR a 1 OAAK GROUND FACE OIU VENEEP. WI Bl>CK GROUT
l::m I CMU CN'@BASE
,J,'.q' NTRYLEVEL
�------METAL WALL�
0 4' 8' 16' '=--===
WI KYNAA SOO MATIE FINISl-I
18
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
5
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
1
,
2
0
1
9
,
W
o
r
k
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
–
I
t
e
m
1
FERRY STREET MANOR
MUPTE Application
20 March 20 19
�I
z
0
-� � w_J w
I I:>
0V)
19
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 5
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
' � � J� �
' H .. 1� ;i; ' f
FERRY STREET MANOR
MUPTE Application
20 March 20 19
§ �
� � �!\l h
:1 "
0
z
0
� � w ....J w
IV) <( w
20
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 5
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
FERRY STREET MANOR
MUPTE Application
20 March 2019
z
0
-� :>w _J w
I
�
0 z
21
Exhibit B
Page 5 of 5
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 1
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Rivers to Ridges Partnership - Fifteen Years of Accomplishments Meeting Date: September 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 2 Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Craig Carnagey
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-4930
ISSUE STATEMENT This work session will provide an update on the accomplishments of the Rivers to Ridges partnership over the past 15 years as it works to implement a 20-year vision to improve the quality of life for residents in the Upper Willamette Valley by working together to protect and enhance the region’s land and water resources. This update also includes planning work recently started to renew this vision moving forward into the next 20 years.
BACKGROUND The Rivers to Ridges Partnership and Twenty-Year Vision were established in 2003 from two goals: 1. Create a regional parks and open space vision 2. Identify long- and short-term strategies for implementing the vision. These goals were laid out in the Rivers to Ridges Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Study. Prior to the development of this study, parks and open space planning for the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area had occurred primarily at the local level without the benefit of a broader regional perspective. Lack of such a vision resulted in lost funding opportunities and difficulties with local coordination. To address this issue, the Eugene and Springfield City Councils, the Lane County Board of Commissioners, and the Willamalane Park and Recreation Board met in November 2000 and agreed unanimously to proceed with—and jointly fund—a Metropolitan Regional Parks and Open Space Study, which became the Rivers to Ridges Vision. The Vision was developed based on extensive input received between December 2001 and May 2003 from citizens, elected officials, and staff from local, state and federal agencies. Since 2003, the partnership has grown to include 17 partners representing federal, state and local governments; non-profit education and conservation-focused organizations; and all four regional watershed councils. This partnership has made great strides in recognizing the endorsed vision and accomplishing the partner mission to improve the quality of life for residents in the upper Willamette Valley by working together to protect and enhance the region’s land and water resources as well as their ecosystem functions and values; and to provide environmental education and compatible outdoor recreation opportunities.
September 11, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION As a confirmation of the cooperative effort that created this regional vision, the following elected and appointed bodies endorsed the Vision by unanimous consent:
Eugene City Council
Eugene Planning Commission
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Springfield Planning Commission
Willamalane Park and Recreation District
COUNCIL OPTIONS This update is informative only and no council action is requested
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION This item is informational only.
SUGGESTED MOTION This item is informational only.
ATTACHMENTS A. Rivers to Ridges - Fifteen Years of Accomplishments Report
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Shelly Miller, Natural Resources Planning Supervisor Telephone: 541-682-4888 Staff E-Mail: smiller@eugene-or.gov
2003 - 2018
Rivers to Ridges
Fifteen Years of Accomplishments
Acres of
habitat
restored6,736
Miles of
trail or path
built29
Acres
of land
protected6,241Number of
plants planted2 Stream
miles opened
for fish passage
59
MILLIONover
MWMC
Seavey Loop Rd.
Lowell
COYOTE-
SPENCER
WETLANDS
COYOTE
CREEK
MEADOWS
COYOTE
CREEK NE
COYOTE
PRAIRIE
COYOTE
CREEK
SPENCER
SWAMP
ANDREW
REASONER
WILDLIFE
PRESERVE
GOLDENGARDENS
LOMATIUM PRAIRIE
COYOTEOAKS
COYOTESWAMP
DECKER
GREEN
ISLAND
No Public Access
(MRT)
SOUTH
EUGENE
MEADOWS SUZANNEARLIE PARK
CORYELLRIDGE
TURTLEFLATS
WILLAMETTE CONFLUENCEPRESERVE(TNC)
No Public Access
No Public Access
COBURG
RIDGE
PRESERVE
No Public Access
CHUB
SLOUGH
BERGGREN
MCKENZIE
OXBOW
ROBADAMSPARK
THURSTON
HILLS
HAUL
ROAD
CRESWELL
BUTTE
No Public Access
No Public Access
Agriculture
and Floodplain
HOLLYER
PRAIRIE
TOWNSENDWOODS
No Public Access
No Public Access
No Public Access
HENDRICKS
BRIDGE
WILD
IRIS
RIDGE
Camas Swale
Prairie and
Savanna
Poten�al FutureRails to TrailsConnec�on to Coos Bay
Agricultural
Lands
Planned
Coburg
Loop
Agriculture
and Floodplain
Agriculture
and Floodplain
Agriculture and
Floodplain
Canal
Birding
Trail
Proposed Eugene
to Pacific Crest Trail
Proposed Eugeneto Pacific Crest Trail
Proposed Pathto Veneta(ODOT)
SPENCER
BUTTE
AMAZON
PARK
LAURELWOOD
GOLF COURSE
HENDRICKS
PARK
WILLOW CREEK
NATURAL AREA
(TNC)
ARMITAGEPARK
BETHELCOMMUNITYPARK
SANTA CLARA PARK
BAKER
R
i
v
e
r
Ri
v
e
r
Amazon
C
r
e
e
k
McK
enzie
SKINNERBUTTEPARK
WESTMORELAND
PARK
AMAZON
HEADWATERS
Be
l
t
l
i
n
e
Highway 126
R
i
v
e
r
R
d
.
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
9
9
Irving Rd.
Irvington Rd.
11th Ave.
Royal Ave.
Barger Dr.
18th Ave.
Be
r
t
e
l
s
e
n
R
d
.
Gr
e
e
n
H
i
l
l
R
d
.
Road
6th Ave.
7th Ave.
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
9
9
30th Ave.
Cobu
r
g
R
d
.
Beltline
Road
Cal Young Rd.
De
l
t
a
No
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
E
x
p
y
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
s
S
t
.
105/126
Franklin
B
l
v
d
.
ASCOTPARK
I-5
I-5
DELTAPONDSPARK
Hig
h
w
a
y
5
8
I-5
ALTON
PARK
Fern
Ridge
Reservoir
Middle
Fork
Coast
Fork
BUFORD
RECREATION
AREA
Main Street Highway 126
P
i
o
n
e
e
r
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
DORRIS
RANCH
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
HILEMAN
FERNRIDGE
WILDLIFEAREA
A
m
a
z
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Wi
l
l
a
m
e
�
e
S
t
.
Fox Hollow
Roa
d
Bai
l
e
y
Hi
l
l
Ro
a
d
Hill
Ro
a
d
Gimpl
DRAGONFLY
BEND
BERTELSENNATUREPARK
LUK-WAHPRAIRIE
OAK HILL
MURRAYHILL VIDERA
SKYVIEW
MELVIN
MILLER
HAWKINS
HEIGHTS
WAYNE MORSEFAMILY FARMCREST
HEIGHTS LAFFERTY
BLANTONRIDGE MOUNTBALDY
TUGMAN
KINCAID
BLOOMBERG
MOONMOUNTAINLAURELHILL
WASHINGTON
EASTGATEWOODLANDSMONROE
MAURIEJACOBS
PARKBLOCKS
RASOR
WALNUTGROVE
PETERSON
WENDOVERAWBREY
TERRALINDA
CREEKSIDE
STRIKERFIELD
WILLAKENZIE
OAKMONT
GILLESPIEBUTTE
SORRELPOND
BONDLANE
ARROWHEAD
FERNDALE
LONEOAK
WESTBANK
OWENROSEGARDEN
EMERALD PARK (RRPRD)
Dillar
d
Road
W
ill
a
m
e
t
t
e
QUAMASH
PRAIRIE
Short
Mountain
Landfill
MEADOWLARK
PRAIRIE
MWMCBiocycleFarm
Airport
Dexter
Reservoir
ELIJAHBRISTOWSTATE PARK
DEXTERSTATE PARK
JASPER
SRS
BOBKEEFERCENTER
HARVESTLANDING
WEST D GREENWAY
LOGJAM
LANDING
KELLYBUTTE
BEACONLANDING
WHITELY
LANDING
BIG
ISLAND
MWMC
LCC
LCC
CLEARWATER
LIVELY
RUFF
BOBARTZ
WILLAMALANE
Creek
Coyo
t
e
No Public
Access
VICKERY
Mohaw
k
Rive
r
McK
e
n
z
i
e
V
i
e
w
Drive
Camp Creek
Roa
d
Moh
a
w
k
32
n
d
S
t
.
Centennial
42
n
d
S
t
.
S
t
r
a
u
b
Jasp
e
r
R
o
a
d
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
R
o
a
d
ORCHARDPOINT
PERKINS PENINSULA
ZUMWALT
RICHARDSON
Terr
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
Clear Lake Road
Spence
r
Creek
Lon
g
Tom
Rive
r
Long Tom River
Am
a
z
o
n
Diver s i o n
W
illa
mette
Millra
c
e
Millrace
WILLAMETTE
DAISY MEADOW
Road
Crow
Cree
k
Camas Swale
Wild
Hog Creek
Rus
s
e
l
Cre
e
k
C
r
e
e
k
Papenfus
Cr
e
e
k
Ratt
l
e
s
n
a
k
e
C
r
e
e
k
L
o
s
t
Cr
e
e
k
Fa
l
l
Cree
k
Hills
Veneta
Crow
Creswell
Springeld
Eugene
PleasantHill
Goshen
Mohawk
Walterville
Dexter
Alvadore
Creek
Cedar
Wil
l
o
w
Cr
e
e
k
JunctionCity
C
o
y
o
t
e
C
r
e
e
k
FERNRIDGE
WILDLIFEAREA
Short
Mountain
Camas Swale
Floodplain
Hwy
.
OXBOW
MOEMOUNTAIN
Future
Community
Park
Coburg
Walterville
Canal
KirkPond
SEE-SIL
SAVANNA
FIRBUTTE
QUARTZ
B
o
b
P
k
w
y
.
TYSON
WYERHAEUSERMcKENZIE PATH
ALLEN
FERN RIDGE
WILDLIFE AREA
FERNRIDGEWILDLIFE
AREA
Rivers to Ridges
* Map Update: This vision map was revised in 2017 to include updated extent of conserved lands, trails, and paths along with a more detailed geographic base. The parks and open space vision shown is consistent with the concepts depicted on the original 2003 Rivers to Ridges vision map and subsequent refinements including the 2008 Ridgeline Area Open Space Vision and the 2010 Willamette River Open Space Vision. The Rivers to Ridge vision was endorsed by the Lane County Board of Commissioners (February 2003), The Eugene City Council (March 2003), the Willamalane Park and Recrea�on District Board (April 2003), and the Springfield City Council (May 2003), all by unanimous consent. The vision is intended to provide a framework for future open space planning efforts.
June 2003 Vision (Updated December 2018*)
Metropolitan Regional Parks and Open Space Vision Map
Legend
Parks, Open Space, and Conserved Lands (Public)
Other Conserved Lands (Land Trusts and Non-Profits)*
Rivers and Streams
Reservoirs (full pool)
Exis�ng So�-Surfaced Recrea�onal Trails
Exis�ng Hard-Surfaced Path
Scale
0 2 Miles1 Map produced by Jeff Krueger and the R2R Partnership
Rivers to Ridges Vision Elements
Key Open Space Anchors (Exis�ng and Possible Future)
Key Upland Corridors (Ridges)
Key Water Based Corridors (Rivers and Streams)
Key Agricultural Areas and Community Buffers
Proposed Future Regional Trails and Paths (Conceptual)
Conserved Lands (Since 2003)
New or Upgraded Soft-Surface Trails (Since 2003)
New Hard Surface Paths (Since 2003)
* Public access is typically not provided to these areas.
Fifteen Year
Accomplishments
(2003 - 2018)
Priorities for the
next 5 years
Improved trail connectivity
Improved habitat connectivity and quality
Expanded educational opportunities
Revisiting the vision
Increased access to water for recreation
Safety in parks
The Rivers to Ridges Partnership is dedicated to improving the quality of life for residents
in the upper Willamette Valley by working together to protect and enhance the region’s
land and water resources and their ecosystem functions and values; and to provide
environmental education and compatible outdoor recreation opportunities.
Our Mission
Photo credits: cover, Jeff Krueger; back cover from
left to right, top to bottom: City of Eugene, Ed Alverson,
Meadowlark Imagery, WREN, City of Eugene, Philip
Richardson, WREN
The Partnership
rivers2ridges.org
• Bureau of Land Management
• City of Eugene
• Coast Fork Willamette
Watershed Council
• Friends of Buford Park and
Mount Pisgah
• Lane County Parks
• Long Tom Watershed Council
• McKenzie River Trust
• McKenzie Watershed Council
• Middle Fork Willamette
Watershed Council
• Mount Pisgah Arboretum
• The Nature Conservancy
• Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
• Oregon Parks and Recreation Department
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Willamalane Parks and
Recreation District
• Willamette Resources and
Education Network