Springfield City Council — May 9, 2022

0:20 I'm going to call this Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon. Here. Councilor Pitts. Here. Councilor Moon. Here. Councilor Roddy. Here. Councilor Sears. Here. Councilor Woodrow. Here. Councilor Pishue. Here. Thank you. We have one item in the work session tonight, which is the affordable housing strategies with Aaron Fife and Sandy Belson. And Aaron or Sandy, I don't know who's starting us off. Good evening, Mayor and Councilors. Uh my name is Sandy Belson. I'm going to start us off this evening and I will turn it over to Aaron um a little bit later. Um I'm the interim planning manager for the City of Springfield and since I

1:05 started working for the City of Springfield in 2016, um we were have been looking at housing issues, um trying to identify what the particular needs are in Springfield. The Council developed some housing strategies and tonight we are focusing on a few of those for which staff would like direction as we continue to implement the strategies that Council identified or make some tweaks to them as we go along. Um and keeping in mind that uh by state law, we will be needing to take another whole re-look at our housing needs and analyze those needs along with a buildable lands inventory to um look at the housing capacity in

1:51 Springfield and we will need to adopt any comprehensive plan amendments um to address those by the end of 2025. And at that time well, I mean as you know from your previous council meeting there are some inconsistencies between the proposed development code amendments and our comprehensive plan that we'll need to address those policies along with that. Um and then following that housing capacity analysis, we will focus on a housing production strategy, which is a new requirement under state law and we'll have to adopt that by the end of December 26. And around that same time we'll also be doing a 5-year update to

2:36 our consolidated plan, which is how we use the federal funds in Eugene and Springfield. Uh federal funds meaning the CDBG funds, community development block grant and then our home funds as part of the uh home consortium. So that's a little bit of the context of the where we were and where we're going in terms of addressing housing issues, but for tonight we have a few particular questions for you uh outlined in the memo and I'm just going to start in on that first one. And the first question to which we need an answer uh from council is whether we should continue to waive the system development charges for accessory

3:21 dwelling units. So you started talking about this at your April 4th work session. And for those who may be tuning in, system development charges are those fees that we assess at the time of a building permit to pay for the infrastructure needed to support the development in the system-wide type approach of the infrastructure for capacity. Uh such as uh sanitary sewer for the city system, storm water, and then transportation. So, I put in an uh corrected graph of the number of ADU land use applications that we've received, uh which at the

4:06 time were about 60 since we had amended the code to make it easier to add ADUs. And you can see the financial impact that that has had of the amount that for 1 year, um how much we waived in fiscal year 2021 to how much we collected in system development charges overall for those three systems. So, with that, I will turn it back to the mayor to discuss this first question since I think if we can go sequentially through the memo, that would be easiest for staff. All right. And Leonard, so um I I think 60 is a considerable bump in the number of applications,

4:52 isn't it? Yes, I mean the previous decade I think we had a handful. Yeah, I I I was remembering single digits. Am I Am I remembering that wrong? That's correct. Okay. Well, I I I don't see the downside to encouraging people to putting uh to to put ADUs on their property. So, I I'm all in on uh continuing the SDCs for right now. Marilyn? Uh yes, I am, too. I I looked through this and read through it, and I'm I'm comfortable going forward. If all of a sudden we have uh you know, a voluminous amount of ADUs, we might have to revisit this, but right now I'm comfortable with going

5:37 along with it. Joe? Yeah, I am, too. And in fact, I know that we voiced the same uh concern, or actually the same topic came up the last time we met regarding this and all of us were in favor most of us were in favor of continuing this program. So, I will reiterate that I'm still in favor of this program and continuing it. In fact, I know that uh the year the three-year mark was discussed at that meeting and I would encourage that we look at seriously look at and uh concur with the five-year program. I don't see any downside to it. It's it's the housing and um it doesn't mean we can't reverse, but at this point we can far as I'm concerned we can go go five years without a lot of

6:23 risk. And if there are people feel there may be some extenuating risk or whatever, we can put a 400,000 or 300,000 cap on it or 500,000 over the you know, extended out over five years and I think that it's a drop in the bucket compared to what we're spending in other areas. So, I'm hearing general consensus that you want to continue the waiver. So, I can bring a resolution back for formal council action. Um do you want it to read a like five years with an annual check-in or how would you like that structured? Yeah, I have it come come back as a five-year with an annual with an annual check-in and you know, the annual check-in could be through a memo, right? Like unless

7:08 something's particularly there there's an issue that jumps up with it. But, we need to give some we need to give people certainty and clarity about where our view as a council is about this type of housing and five years seems reasonable. Okay. Thank you. So, then moving on to the next question and it also involves uh waving system development charges. Although in this case we're actually proposing to structure the waiver as a forgivable loan and this would be for income qualified housing that is uh built by a non-profit organization that targets home buyers with low incomes. Uh so, I've put in the memo there what

7:55 low income, 80% of median annual income would be. Uh so, you can see the income levels of that type of family, and then what the SDCs would typically be for a single unit dwelling. I mean, it depends, um but that gives you a a ballpark idea of around 10 11,000 dollars per unit. Uh in for the three uh systems, and we're estimating that there would probably not be more than um you know, 10 or so a year. So, uh I see some questions. Yeah, so Sandy, before we start with this one, um did I know that you cited Habitat for Humanity and um one of the

8:40 oh, the C Street Co-op. Is this something that they've requested or you or is that just simply us looking for an example? Well, I mean, lots of developers request reduced or waived SDCs. Um I mean, that that's what we hear most from developers when we're talking about what would help make housing more affordable or more practical. So, um but your question is specific to the C Street Co-op. Or or Habitat for Humanity, right? Like because in the memo, you're refer you're referring to them, and I and I couldn't quite tell if it was an example or we had Habitat for Humanity or the C Street Co-op group coming here and saying and asking us specifically to do that.

9:26 So, um I'll call a friend with Ann Fifield here who's with me and see if she's had that um formal request. The re- but to answer the reason that we listed those is because we know that those have projects that are likely to come toward us. Um I mean Habitat has the 12 lots already that they own and uh they are getting ready to be building those homes. Uh and then we've been in discussion with the developer of C Street Co-op of wanting to do a similar project elsewhere. So those are two that we know are likely to happen in the short term. Erin? I'll just add. I think the question I

10:12 usually get from any developer is sort of like what funds are available. Uh I don't know that it's specific SDCs, but it's sort of like what do you have that could help me as a nonprofit develop. Um and so I think as Sandy was putting this together, it was sort of like, well, SDCs are something we're helping in this way. This could be one of those tools we apply toward affordable home ownership. Thank you. Um first, I really appreciate the way you all encapsulated this cuz I remember when we had this conversation last time and we were like I was one of those people who was trying to wrap my head around what it was that you were proposing and asking. And so I just really appreciated this cuz it was like, oh, this makes a lot more sense. And I

10:57 can see what the low-income rate is. I'm I'm completely in supportive of this cuz I think this is a great way to just sort of get our partners to build more affordable housing and I really like the like resale affordability for at least 5 years. So I'm in support of this. Merely. Um I just had I I'm had more a clarifying question cuz I'm in support of this as well, but I was just curious um the steps of the process for someone to get the forgivable loan, how do how does that work?

11:45 So, we haven't nailed down the approach and I think it would in part depend on the developer. Uh, but again, I'm going to see if Aaron wants to add in on on this. Sure, I think we um, there are other certainly with the with other federal funds that we give out both to individual homeowners and also to other nonprofit developers, we have a similar um, sort of insurance policy in that sense to say, "Hey, we're giving this money asking for this in return." I think there are different ways to structure and I I have Christina weigh in on this if a lien on the property is the best way that if they wanted to go ahead and sell the property, that is going to come up on the title report to say, "Hey, this you know, you owe the city of Springfield whatever it is, $10,000."

12:30 Um, once that has been met, that period of time that we're asking in return, then we can sort of satisfy that lien and we can take it off the property. Um, if there's another mechanism that seems to work for the developer but also works for the city, I'm certainly if it's a promissory note or something else, that works too. Um, but that was sort of something that is an automatic trigger that's going to be tied to the land. So, at what point does the federal home funds come in? In this case, um, most likely not. So, for you know, homeownership is really hasn't we haven't figured out with the new home rules how to use those federal dollars for homeownership. Um, so this would be a way to support these kind of projects that we can't seem to figure

13:15 out how to support right now with the federal home dollars. Okay. My only other question and and it's I don't think it's been addressed but it just flew through my mind as I was looking at the stuff. Um, have we ever considered discounted SDCs um, in in a situation like this rather than rather than waving them completely or or assigning them completely is there do we ever end up in the middle anywhere? I don't know that we've ever done that, but we certainly could do that. Okay. It's It's a It's a consideration, um, especially if we're working with somebody who wants to develop um, as opposed to just waving them completely or placing a lien, um, it might be worth, you know, thinking about.

14:03 Leonard Okay. Those are my Those are my questions. Thank you. Thanks, Shawn. Um, I, um, I wanted to ask her I see we're going to be coming up on RVs next. Are we going to be talking about different types of transitional housing at some point? I mean, just different proposed types. I mean, for for tonight's work session, we have the RVs. We don't really have any other, um, transitional housing topics prepared for discussion tonight, but that doesn't mean we can't take council direction in in terms of what you want us to work on. Let Let me plant a seed here. Um, I've been doing a little bit of research at the behest of some um, some homeless advocates. Um, there are used rail containers that are

14:50 available on eBay and throughout the internet for between $1,500 and $2,000. Brand new, they're $6,000. And as near as I can tell, the only thing that it would take to make them habitable would be to reverse the way that they open so that they could open outward instead of inward. Um, other than that, I mean, they seem fairly they they they seem like a fairly viable way of putting people up for the short term if not the long term. And I love to find out what would be needed in order to make them compliant with code. So, Counselor Stowe, are you

15:35 assuming that they would be allowed as well as the RVs in that on private property? Is that how you're thinking that they would be I I I was thinking um I actually I'm I'm open to where to put them. I mean, I my my main concern is whether they would actually be code compliant. Well, let me let me drop in and make a suggestion here. If like if you're doing some additional reading, I think probably the best thing to do would be to give that to one of the housing developers and have if somebody's interested in looking at that as a project, then they can develop something and come forward and and have something to respond to them. Like otherwise, we're just going to sort of conceptually ask the staff to respond to all the different types of housing that we've

16:20 got out there. Well, I I think that the developers, you know, they're God bless them, they don't always have the greatest imaginations, you know, and so they're not sure, you know, that they're going to be making a 100% you know, like a lot of profit on them. And so they get pushed to the back burner. So what I would like is just to have some sort of idea that we could go to the developers with on how on how much it would actually cost to make them code compliant. So just one more thing, when you're talking code compliant, there's really two main codes here. There's the development code Mhm. um and that would be more of a land use aspect. And so um and then there's the building code. I think it's going to take a lot more work

17:06 to get them to comply with the building code. I'm not sure that's possible. That's the one I'm on. Just to make a distinction there. Um if if it's going going treated as a dwelling unit, then it would need to comply with the building code. Okay. So, so again, like I've I've been through a couple of these conversations cuz I've asked the question about 3D printed houses and a lot of different things. You've got some good connections with with folks on the on the developer side. Is it really like, you know, it it it it could be carried forward, right? Like but like having somebody really look at it and kind of mock up a project and you know, would give people a chance to react to it because I think there's a lot of questions. We might be able to get Habitat involved. I mean, yeah, yeah.

17:53 Um but yeah, any anyway, um yeah, to to get back to the subject at hand, I'm definitely in favor of extending the SDC waiver on the low-income projects, too. Thanks. Joe. No, I was just going to jump in on that last conversation just a little bit in regards to you know, developers there's a misconception out there that developers make a ton of money ton of money on everything they do. And I I can assure you that that is is very rarely the case. And that developers um develop whenever they can even show any profit just to stay in business. Um

18:38 so I just want to you know, I just want people start thinking that developers are out there making a ton of money hand over fist. When frankly, when there's SDC charges out there, developments don't happen because of the the SDC rates because they can't make they can't pencil it out. So, there is a fine line and I and I uh it's difficult for staff to try to figure out where it goes and and here we are in just a couple months, all of our rates for those SDCs are going to go up 5% plus they're still going to get charged for technology fee, and every time we turn around and and rubber stamp a rate increase of of the cost of living or 5% or 3%, it lessens the ability for people to construct here.

19:24 So, I think that that that is um not considered enough, and frankly, I would like to see a year where we don't raise those SDCs just so we can get some houses built and answer the supply that it it create a supply where people can actually afford to move into as opposed to subsidize um government-owned nonprofit-owned property properties where the all the nonprofit properties do not pay the city of Springfield any taxes. So, every place we build that is uh subsidized, typically, it it doesn't uh it it harms the city in a in a way where we can uh it costs us more to cover these places and provide infrastructure, etc. It's just a it's a

20:09 heck of a uh uh uh uh uh it's a it's a heck of a uh uh trend that's a a dog chasing its tail. Did you have anything else? Oh, your hand can come back down. Um I guess I've got uh a couple more questions here. When you think about the amount of what what I when I read the packet and when you sort of think about the amount of staff work associated to administer a program like that, is there but is there a way we can get to sort of the same result with a more streamlined program, right? Because you've got liens, we've got to track it, we've got to update it. Um I guess I'm open to

20:54 something a little bit more streamlined even if there's even if it's a little bit more open-ended that would avoid the the administrative overhead. Well, I think if you were not concerned about maintaining the affordability over a certain amount of time, um you could just wave it on the upfront end and then if the homeowner decides to sell it um 2 years later uh and we are not trying to recoup that or maintain affordability like we've proposed for 5 years, that would remove any of the tracking involved. Okay. The second question that I think I that that I had is like all the fees um that you know, SDCs are an easy thing to go

21:39 to, right? But when you when you talk to when you talk to developers, it's sort of the cost it's the cost of land, right? And having having land available to address and build housing on. So, is there if our goal is to build more total housing and get people into homeownership for the first time, again, is SDCs the right way to go at it or is it the only real lever that we have? So, is there a different is there a different lever that we could pull that sort of helps push people into their their first set of a for of homeownership the first time that would be a little bit more effective? So, we have the SHOP program uh but that's for people that are wanting to purchase a home. It's not necessarily

22:25 encouraging adding new housing to the stock. Um it's a first-time home buyer loan and Aaron could speak more about that. There is the at the toward the end of the memo, there is a tax exemption that does address homeownership that we um can explore further. I had not made that a priority given the previous work and support from council on the tax exemption for housing diversity or the MUPTI program. Um but there is another tax exemption for homeownership, but I frankly have not heard that that is the

23:10 key issue. It's really the It's the upfront cost more so than the ongoing cost of homeownership that's keeping people from getting in. So, my sense from talking with developers, and Erin can add her perspective as well, is that whatever we can do to reduce the upfront cost for building housing or buying the house initially, depending whether we're helping the developer or the homeowner directly, is what's going to make housing more affordable for homeownership. Corey.

23:59 Thanks. So, I think I think there are a couple pieces to this that I just want to just just reiterate. Because uh there's no one answer, right? There's no one thing that's going to get us all the different layers of housing that we need. So, we're like looking at what are the things that we can control. But one of the things that is challenging is to maintain the affordability of housing. And I know that if we brought in folks from Habitat for Humanity, they could talk to the ways that they've tried to mitigate that over the years because you could get into a Habitat house, and then in 2 years you could turn around and sell that, which is, you know, it it helps to build wealth for people, but it doesn't maintain affordable housing stock. And so, even though we might not, you know, build a million houses with this, the houses that we did, the the

24:44 fact that we were able to maintain that affordability for a minimum of 5 years is a key piece to folks moving from one step to another um along the line of like homeownership. So, that's that's part of it for me, too, is like how do we maintain some of that affordability and we don't know what the market's going to do. And at the same time, we're saying yes to, you know, Mark O. Hatfield Meadows and we're saying yes to other kinds of housing. It's just like how how do we look at all of those pieces and knowing that we only have so much that we can control. So, I'm also open to looking at do we wave fees in other ways, but I think that these these sort of um, no interest or whatever loans are a way to get folks to like build that housing and keep it affordable.

25:39 Hi. This is somewhat similar to Councilor Ryan's Well, it's kind of related, but, you know, so one thing that we talk a lot about affordability, but we never talk about, you know, I'm trying to think of the word. Uh, I mean, you know, culture issues that might keep people from wanting to live in a specific area, as well as, you know, just It seems we focus so much on getting houses that we don't focus on quality of life ever. And, you know, I think a lot of people, to include me, somebody who lives in an apartment, would rather wait to be able to have things like AC, which isn't really a thing in Oregon, or to have parking lots, which everybody is anti because it takes up space, but

26:24 I I'm all about housing, you know, I've never actually lived in a house. Uh, and so a lot of this I can't really relate to, but at the same time, you know, thinking about, you know, colleagues that I know who are looking to stay here, you know, one thing that's pushing them out is small things, you know, like Like I said, like parking lots or no no AC and I would just hope that we I understand that a lot lot going to cost more, but also, you know, I I think small things are going to make people stay, then also add to the cultural pieces like how do we create a cultural people who actually want to uh move here. And and and this is, you know, big picture in the sky, but we talk a lot about,

27:09 you know, housing, which to me is directly correlated to careers. And so, I think a lot of times the language around we need jobs in Springfield. No, we need careers because jobs don't pay mortgages. We need careers that are going to make people want to stay where they can move up. And so, I think that these are all connected. You know, once again, this might be a big picture thing, but I I think we're missing the mark and we're so focused on building more houses that we're not thinking about quality of life for various demographics of people. Okay. So, anybody else have additional comments? So, Sandy and Aaron, I think you're

27:55 you're I'm seeing a head nod to go ahead and design a program for this um and then bring bring it back to us. Um again, I you know, I think the affordability question's a real question and going out into that 5-year window makes a little bit of sense. Um when we see it again, I'm open to to looking for places where we can sort of shave off the the the our our our requirements to administer it and, you know, like and whatever that looks like, right? That's up to you guys. Joe. Thank you, Shawn. I just uh this sounds like a broken record, but I'm going to say it again. So, if you can, please as staff, can you go to your fellow colleagues in the other partner agencies of the quote-unquote Team

28:41 Springfield and approach them um and ask to see if they could go to their elected boards and please ask to see if they would be willing to participate to some degree in this program. We can't this it it just simply cannot If we're going to really see any significant movement, it can't be resting on our shoulders and us be able to have to take the whole pill and try to swallow it. It it's it really takes some partnership and if we really do have colleagues, I'm sure there's out there listening right now that know exactly what I'm saying and it would be great to have those other agencies that collect SDCs to simply look at the big picture

29:27 and know that every property that is tax-based back to what my previous argument was in regards to nonprofits, but I'm talking about tax-based properties to see if they would do some sort of discount or similar program, just something that will get that get some energy going and those properties that are built that will pay property taxes will come back to every one of our partners in a distant, you know, in into perpetuity. So, it's an it's an a great investment to solve a current problem that will help them into perpetuity and help these families exactly what Damien was talking about, career families that are trying to buy homes that it it it adds to the

30:13 strength and the health of the community. And we got to have that in order for us to really have a substantial housing program for every person. Okay, I'm done. All right, let's keep on going. Um, what's the next question, Sandy? So, the next question, um, we had a preview from Counselor Stair. This is RVs as temporary housing. So, Council previously, um, passed a resolution that basically said that the city would not enforce the prohibitions against people living in RVs on private property outside of where they're already allowed. I mean, they're allowed in RV parks, they're allowed in

30:59 um, as part of our overnight parking program. Uh, but for private property owners who would like to be able to provide some temporary housing or allow someone with an RV to park the RV on their property, um, you had said go ahead and not enforce the codes against that. So, I'm checking back in, um, to see if that is something you would like to continue, uh, or if it's something you would like to make permanent. Um, and if so, we would explore how to do that. Or if you want to, um, transition back to how it used to be where we would prohibit that type of temporary housing. Marilyn.

31:52 There. Um, I'm good I'm good with I'm good with either two or three. Uh, continue to allow the RVs on private property with a check-in, um, in a in a future a future check-in, or um, look at code amendment that would allow it. And the only the only restriction I would put on it was they're not to be rentals. That they would be, um, family, extended family, friends, or what however, but not allowed to be an established rental, but allowed, you know, it's extra room for for people who need to to live in, you know, in a small space for a while. But, I'm okay continuing with what we've got as long as there aren't any rentals involved, and I'm okay if if others want to look at it as a as a code amendment.

32:39 Joe. All right, thank you. Um, I I uh agree in parts with uh Mary Lee. I think it's been a good program. It was much needed and we had the the Holiday Farm Holiday Farm fire that was bad. Uh I don't think it's it's we haven't recovered quote unquote recovered from that. I know that there's several homes still being built up the river. Um so there's still that demand. Um I'm I'm okay. Well, there's a couple of things. I want to know if we have any numbers, you know, what kind of numbers are we looking at? And and I thought we originally were talking about a permit, but I think we said no because of the amount of staff time it would take to try to have some sort of program like that. But I think uh

33:24 I'm okay with pushing it out another year. I I I don't think you could get me over the edge to even look at it permanently. I don't think that's the answer and I don't think it's a healthy condition for the city. But I do think that the city is is needs and people need these things as a stop gap. And um I would I would look at it and get some sort of check in for the future and and I don't know how the rest of council feels. I sure would like to at least some point know uh how many what numbers are we talking? I mean, is it 220, 50 or 5,000? I don't I don't have a clue, but I do know that lately I haven't seen RVs parked on the street with the the water hoses and electrical lines running to the to the mobile uh the trailer trailer

34:10 mobile trailers or whatever you call them, travel trailers parked on the street. So, there it's it's starting, you know, once you get kind of an inch, sometimes it's going to start getting pushed. I know that there's been many uh conversations on social media and photographs of there's uh uh significant issue of mobile homes and uh mobile homes, but the uh travel trailers and RVs now uh parking on streets and then leaving and and moving to next street and then coming back the street they get cited and they continue this move back and forth thing. So, it's the population of that type of activity is getting larger. So, I don't know if it's it could become a problem and I don't want to promote that, but I don't think I could be convinced on a permanent basis, but I can certainly think it

34:56 makes sense to go for another year with a check-in. Thank you. Sandy or Aaron can can you respond to a couple of those uh like about the numbers and you know, maybe any issues about uh folks being out like having things in the public part of the street? So, in terms of the numbers, uh Counselor Pecenary is right that we had talked about a permit, but decided not to because of the administrative burden and so therefore, we don't really have any idea of how many are out there. Um and there would not be an easy way to determine that. So, what I can say is that um as I put in the memo, we really have not had complaints um unless the people were not following the established guidelines or there were

35:42 other issues on the property already and this is adding to it. So, um whether that's because people there aren't very many out there or that people that that are out there are complying with the guidelines or are being good neighbors, I don't know. In terms of the streets, that's really a police matter that doesn't touch our department, so I really can't speak to what quantity or um response has been. That would be um the police would respond to the on-street parking issues. All right, thank you. Leonard. I uh I think I'm seeing a potential revenue stream here. I mean, uh we've got a lot of parking spaces in the right-of-ways around these industrial

36:28 parks like um Shawn, I know that you walk up and down Shelley Street a lot. And I mean, there would be you know, up over 100 spaces if we chose to use them. And at that I I know that the people who own these RVs, they're paying more than $100 a month in gas and citations just trying to stay one jump ahead of the constables. So, um wonder if it might actually be profitable for the city to rent these rent these spaces out as long as they're not being used. So, did you have any other comments? Um I Yeah, I don't think that's a good idea. So, here's the Here's the you

37:13 know, I'm not surprised. I know you're shocked there. The two things that that I get really concerned about in the right-of-way, right? One of them is uh when in Salem ran into this problem, I don't know, a little while ago. They they had they had a car accident against some some fo- campers that were in the right-of-way. So, from a safety perspective, I'm I would be really concerned about you know, letting people sort of either camp, stay, renting spots in in the right-of-way just from a management perspective from a management perspective. I just don't see a way I could support that. Beverly

38:00 Two two things. One, I live on a small cross-section of streets. Uh what? Probably one full street and a couple half streets connected to me. I would say I have at least eight houses in my my development uh with that have RVs on their next to their driveway hooked up for people to live in. Um and it's not causing a problem. I I don't see a problem if we put it out there that people can do that and just say, "But don't park on the street. If you park on the street, you're going to get a citation." And just make it very restrictive. You can do it on the property next to the driveway. However, you do accommodate it on the property itself. But as soon as you hit the street and hook up or leave it there longer than what is it, 48 hours or whatever the time limit

38:45 is for people to you know, fix their get their RV all equipped so they can go on a vacation or something. There's a certain amount of time they can have it on the street. Um I can't remember what it is, 24 or 48 hours. Um but as long as beyond that, if somebody parks on the street and leaves it there, then it's just so people know ahead of time. But then it's okay if they want to put it on the on their property uh to be a to be a um uh an availability for for extra housing and stuff. The other part of it is that if we do do if we do go ahead and do this and extend it, there's nothing wrong with having an annual check-in to see if there's issues, there are problems. If an issue arises, it can always come back for discussion or for

39:30 to talk about concerns. Um but I like the idea of extending it and giving people that option. Um but I think it's not a problem. Uh keeping the restriction keeping them off the street and just make you know, giving people you're giving people something to be able to accommodate, but at the same time you're saying, "But you can only go this far. You can't take full advantage of my, you know, taking up the street and and being where you're not supposed to be." Corey. Thanks. Um so, I also don't want them on the street. But I I I'm I'm actually with Joe. The I I don't want to do it forever. I know. It's like I would rather cuz I

40:15 mean, ideally, we want to do things to encourage more stable housing, right? And so, if we're doing all of these other things to encourage stable housing, I would also really like us to have some sort of a baseline and be tracking what's happening so that what we'd like to see is less and less of that unless there is again like something that happens like a fire or something where we need to pull out all of the stops. I would rather look at it like say, "Okay, we're going to extend this for a year and then we're going to come back and and talk about it." And maybe within that time kind of identify the things that we want to be looking at to kind of measure whether it's successful and whether we're doing the other things we need to do to provide better transitional housing. Cuz I mean, it it is a way of transitional housing, but

41:00 again, it's only available to so many people, in so many neighborhoods depending on if you know people. So, it's not really a like a an equitable way to deal with it. So, I would I'm yes off the streets. Also, maybe more short-term or more transitional so that we can just see if it's if we're moving away from it. Steve, did you want to get in here? Yeah, I I consider transitional housing. Who wants to live there forever? Eventually, they'll work themselves up to a permanent housing. I and it's all on some uh private property not on the streets. I think Joe was talking about moving them around on the streets. I think it's a Eugene problem. And uh every time I see one of those, I see one or two people that are not on the

41:45 streets because they're in that. So, uh I support All right. Marilyn, and then we'll see if we can't get get it wrapped up into some sort of package for you know, direction for the staff here. I just I look at it right now as one of those layers that we can offer. If we get to the point if we don't need that layer, that would be great. But, when if you're talking about extended family, you're talking about seniors who no longer can function in a house by themselves, but if they can live on in an RV next door to their and they don't have $30,000 to put an ADU on the property, something like that. I just I just look at it as one more option that's available uh to provide housing and um and socialization. So, somebody's not out

42:30 there all by themselves, but they have an opportunity to be amongst people, and I think that's really important, too. So, I I think it's a layer we need to keep until there's a reason not to have it. Okay. So, let's see if we can't wrap this up in direction. So, we we definitely want to keep keep doing it. We want to check in in about in another year. Um we some sort of data if we can get it. I know Sandy, we we opted out of a permit a little while ago. Um I don't know if we can get us You guys have a year to figure it out, but some sense of how many how many are actually out there. And then probably paired with with um some sort of data on whether or not we're getting calls from either the PD

43:15 or, you know, in in the planning about it. Did I miss anything? All right. I think we're ready for the next question. All right, and I'll turn it over to Aaron for the next one on the home uh ARP funding. Sandy? Uh good evening, Mayor Council. Uh I'm here tonight um to provide information on a new source of one-time funding um and just making space available if you have any questions. Um so, recently Congress has approved a new one-time funding for housing for people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. Um this is through the American Rescue Plan um and coming

44:00 under through the Department of Housing and Urban Development to jurisdictions who already receive federal home dollars. So, we are creatively calling this funding source home ARP. Um so, this is actually coming through the home consortium, which is Mayor Mayor Vinis Gordon and Counselor Rodly sit on that for Springfield along with Mayor Vinis and Counselor Semple for Eugene. And so, the decisions happen there, but the Mayor and Counselor Rodly wanted to make sure this body was aware of that funding source. So, um I'll just kind of walk through. We are receiving as a as a as a consortium between Eugene and Springfield about 4.7 million dollars of one-time funding. Our

44:45 annual allocation as a consortium is usually around 1.3 million dollars. So, this is a significant sort of three and a half times of what we normally receive on an annual basis. Um because it's coming through the American Rescue Plan, it is similar to home funds, um but it also has some differences. And part of that difference is the target population, specifically targeting folks who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, but also those who may be fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, those at greatest risk of housing instability, um with attention to veterans. The other piece that's slightly different with these one-time dollars are the ways that we can spend these funds. Um we can certainly put these funds toward the development of rental housing, which is

45:30 similar to our um annual home funds. We can also put these funds toward the development of non-congregate shelter for the homeless. We could also apply funds toward supportive services of nonprofits serving this particular population through this housing. Um we can provide operating assistance for nonprofits, and we could also uh potentially put these funds toward tenant-based rental assistance. So, that is kind of the overarching possibilities of the funding source, um but part of the American Rescue Plan requirements under HOME as sort of needing us to go out and do outreach to local stakeholders um including affordable housing developers, social service providers, and then also doing a bunch of data analysis both with sort of census data

46:16 and then also our local service providers. Um I'll pause. Counselor Wehby, I saw your hand up. And we're already there. That's fine. Go ahead, Emily. Get that microphone and uh It likes to hide at the top of my screen. Um the question I have was um the being a the being a consortium, do Eugene and Springfield have to do the same thing? No. Okay. So have we determined what would best best benefit Springfield from these funds? So yeah, yeah. So Counselor Rodley and the mayor are sort of looking at the outreach that's been done and the data analysis that's been done. They are recommending that Springfield put a

47:02 draft allocation and put put our dollars toward permanent rental housing development with some social services for those first few years given the population. And could you define rental housing development for me? Sure, that's what we do already currently with the HOME funds. That is sort of creating permanent housing that is sort of in many cases a nonprofit may own it and then sort of making sure that rents are set at a affordable rent for a income qualified household. So if that household is only making 50% of area median income, then those rents rents need to be sent at a lower set at a low enough level that would make it

47:48 affordable for them to live there. So it would be similar to Habitat or Square One without ownership. Yeah, I mean we have those examples like recently St. Vincent de Paul with the Myrtlewood or Royal building downtown. Those are examples, yeah. Okay. Okay. All righty, thank you. Yeah. Leonard. Thanks, Sean. Um well, I'm I'm looking at two, three, four, and five and they're dependent to varying degrees of housing already being available. And right now, I mean we just had a fire that destroyed some of the last units that were available at $600 for rent in Springfield. So, it seems to me it's

48:33 sort of incumbent on us to encourage number one, uh development of the housing so that we can start to worry about the social services and all the wrap-around stuff that we're proposing in the further uh steps. Yeah, number one was um what our local providers and um both affordable housing developers and providers um said was the most important um and kind of bore out also with the data to say yes, those units are needed. Right, I agree. Thank you. Joe. Thank you. Um so, I I don't have a problem with that. I support that um but although I do think that we need to instead of throwing it all that one direction which it seems like many things we're doing is we're putting

49:19 right towards affordable housing which is fine, but I'm fearful of people that are struggling to stay in their current rented properties and it gets it gets so uh financially burdensome to people that are getting ready to get booted out of an apartment because of some blip on their radar financially or whatever. Um it seems like we should have some a stronger safety net for those folks. And uh and I haven't seen anything else in all these different programs we're talking about talk about rental assistance or and and survival money for them. And I I I think we are really those have fallen off our radar and I'd not like to see that. I'd like to see

50:05 that supplemented. I know that the county did have something like that. I think that's gone now. So, is that am I correct? Yeah, I mean actually the city actually put I want I'm pulling this I want to say about 250,000 of its CDBG CARES Act money toward rent assistance when that first happened and you know the county and then certainly the state. Um but yeah, I'd have to look into like you said how much of that is still being funded and where people It's my understanding uh from some folks out in my neighborhood that are renters and whatnot that that um that's no longer there. So, if it isn't then I would like to see some go in and and to help Springfield citizens um from this from this bucket and um

50:52 and if I'm wrong then that's great. I don't mind being wrong when it comes to that. But if I'm not then I would like to make sure that that we have some sort of continued safety net. Okay. And then maybe I'll just mention the process here is so we have not um published the draft allocation yet. So, the plan for next steps in May would be for the HOME Consortium to sort of put forward the draft and then that needs to go through a 30-day public comment period with a public hearing and then in June come to the Consortium. So, in that if you're okay with this draft being published as is, we can sort of do research on where um that support additionally for Yeah, I just I just I just don't want to see total focus on investment in rental

51:38 properties as opposed to rental assistance. I just don't want it to see um that wither up and die on the vine. And if it does, I'd like to see who and why and what they said. Thank you. Steve, I don't know if this is the right place to bring this up, but I just thought that those that apply to for a place to rent, it costs $45 for the application and it's non-refundable. That's pretty big hit on those on those people. I don't know if there's anything we can do about it, but it's a it is a problem. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Joe. Steve, I'm glad you mentioned that.

52:23 That's a good point. A lot of companies do charge what they call an application fee. I know some landlords very closely that do not and have never charged a fee because of that reason. A person and it's gross, but I have heard in some cases where a landlord will will advertise a place for rent and sit back and take applications all month long and they can make a ton of money doing that. But there is rules out there that people need to make sure they're aware of through some of these What's that Aaron, maybe you know the um Eugene-Springfield Springfield-Eugene Tenants Association Yes, that's it. They have the right name correctly. Springfield-Eugene advocacy that we need to really make

53:09 sure that people out there that are looking for for rental properties that there's some rules out there and the law says I shouldn't say talk like an attorney, but there's there's rules out there that say that if you apply for rent and you are you meet the eligibility requirements, they must rent it to you instead of taking that money. So, I I agree. It's it's it's a big scam out there and and we should do what we can to to eliminate that. So, all right. I think we've got the direction that we need for the home consortium. So, let's move on to the next one, Sandy. Sure. So, the next topic uh property tax exemptions. So, there are several listed here in your memo. Uh one of which has been more

53:57 fully fleshed out, but I'll just skip to the next couple um and then come back to the one that I really need more direction on. So, we I was incorrect at your April 4th meeting. We do have one project that has taken advantage of the reinstatement of the low-income rental housing property tax exemption, and that is the Myrtlewood that Aaron just mentioned, 35 units of affordable housing on Main Street developed by St. Vincent de Paul. Um and one of the reasons that we haven't had more use of that goes back to that needing to find the land on which to develop uh those rental housings. Then there are the two other property tax exemptions, which we will explore in the fall um and come back to you with

54:43 more information on those. One of those is to provide uh nonprofit corporations who provide low-income housing to to give those nonprofits a tax property tax exemption. Um so, that is not in place currently, but it could be. And then uh the single unit housing tax exemption, and that's the one I was referring to earlier that could be applied in an ownership situation. So, we'll come back to those in the fall with more information, but what I um am looking for direction from you now is on the one that's um we've been working on over the past number of years. Um what we're calling the housing diversity tax exemption, and this is the same um statute that Eugene uses for

55:30 their MUPTE. So, this would be for areas that are uh near transit. So, transit-oriented areas and given previous direction, those areas would include downtown, along Mohawk, uh, along King Street, and along Main Street. And then, last uh, month, we added the Marcola Road as directed uh, by Councillor Pishawary. So, for this program, uh, the developer would need to show that they could not make the project pencil but for the property tax exemption. With and that exemption is for a maximum of 10 years, although it could be less. In

56:15 the past, you talked about maybe limiting it to 5 years. And this is where uh, some of Councillor Pitts's ideas about livability could come in because the city can establish some public benefits that it would like to see in return. So, the these tax exemptions can be for market rate units. They could also be for low-income housing that has a contract to be for income-qualified. So, it could be either way. Um, those public benefits that you would um, could require could depend on the area of town. So, if there are is a deficit of a particular service or amenity in one part of the town, we could establish

57:01 the public benefit for that area. Or it could be a benefit um, that we look at and apply citywide. I've given you some examples of some of those public benefits. And in previous discussions, which has been a few a couple years ago since we really gotten into this, um, Councillor had indicated a strong design uh, focus with an improved quality of the neighborhood, um, to keep the program broad and fairly simple for administrative purposes. So, as we continue to work on this program and bring it back to you for your further consideration this fall, um I'm looking to you to see if you have any additional guidance at this time as we uh develop this further.

57:46 Sandy, I've got one clarification about the area since I know we've produced maps in the past and so it's just sort of description here. When you say downtown, when I remember that conversation, I remember following what we would think of as the traditional downtown and then going up and including the Island Park area. Is that Am I remembering that accurately? Yes, at the at your work session, which I believe was right before the pandemic, you opted for the biggest downtown area, which would include the entire urban renewal district as well as um it so it's bigger than what we have for the vertical housing tax exemption and that's in place now, so this um would replace that tax exemption and include a larger area.

58:31 And include some of that multi-family that goes up along Pioneer Parkway um and then over toward Island Park as you said. Okay, perfect. Corey. Thank you. Um I'm really interested in seeing how we develop this out and I appreciated the list of the the public benefits and I think that you're absolutely right that this is a place where um some of the things that Counselor Pitts is reminding us of constantly is a place where we could say where do we what what do we value now and going forward. Um and some of the things that jump out for me, just thinking of like current things, are definitely like the child care facilities and these sort of making sure

59:16 if someone is going to build and and include those in what they were building would be fabulous. And I think back to um sort of multi-use space and many many years ago, cuz I'm old, um, the the housing that was in downtown Eugene that was able people could have micro businesses and also live there and also be downtown. And so, I think there's these creative uses of space that would be really great to to encourage with that. So, again, it is sort of part of the toolbox, but I think we can look at like, what what what do we really need to see in this in this community and what would increase the livability, um, that would make it really sort of snazzy for folks to want to do.

1:00:04 So, Sandy, what kind of direction are you looking for? Are you looking for us to describe the public benefit that we want or give you kind of general direction on how to develop the public benefit? Whatever direction you want to give, we'll take. Okay. Um, my my read through the public benefit would be to be as open and flexible as possible, right? Like, it would be really easy for us to say, this is the public benefit you have to provide for each one, you know, each area. I would actually be probably more in favor of ask giving them a list and saying, "Hey, provide, you know, we're looking to we're looking for you to choose one public benefit off this list and ex you know, and and provide that." Because it could like it just could depend by situation. Joe?

1:00:53 Thank you, Sean. Um, an idea that is actually kind of been floating out there, but I think makes a lot of sense right here for community good is to have uh, regional or parts of the city where there can be a community center of some sort that's running but run by a nonprofit, perhaps by a high school, um, that where the the kids from that high school have a place to go and that center can offer counseling and after and offer just a safe place to go and I think Shawn knows exactly what I'm talking about. That may be and I think Aaron Aaron knows what I'm talking about. That this may be a nice fit for a program that that some folks are looking at out in Thurston.

1:01:39 Um just some place for the for kids to go and to and to get some mental health or counseling with necessary or need be to help mitigate some of the suicidal thoughts etc. All those different issues that that that those uh kids that are in that are in transition to um that suffer. But there's people out there that want to do it. They just need some financial kickstart. But Aaron knows the information. I'm I'm beating around the bush but there's an organization out there I think this would be a perfect fit. So next steps on this one it sounds like you guys are going to work on it over the summer and then we'll get more details about what that would look like

1:02:25 um coming into the into the fall. Correct. And then uh assuming council is still on board with this um once we check back with you with more detail about the program then we would need to be communicating with the other taxing districts to see if they would be supportive of this exemption as well because we need to get a certain number of taxing districts to agree for it to exempt all of the property tax. Wait. As we've had this conversation tonight there's a there's quite a few times we have to go tap them on the shoulder and talk to them as a group. Um I would strongly encourage the staff to have one conversation probably more at the executive level about it and just package the whole strategy together

1:03:11 because that's that's going to make it a lot easier for people to understand. Steve. You realize in the Spring Urban Renewal area they're already doing that. So, remember that. Yeah. Okay. Um Do you have more questions that we need to dig into, Sandy? Uh I'll make one comment and then ask a question. So, we have hired a housing analyst um and she is graduating from Portland State University in June. So, if there are other um focus areas that council would like us to start working on, we have a little bit more capacity um so either now or um in in the fall um we can entertain a little bit more discussion about how to move some of

1:03:57 this forward since we'll have some more capacity with that additional staff person. Okay, great. Thank you. So, the the other piece and I know that we're going to schedule we're going to schedule a work session for uh to to continue this conversation in the fall. But, I would really love us to see as a body, right? Like we've talked strategy, we've talked a lot about our policy options, is to come back and give us one document with everything we've agreed to um and just summarize all these different conversations. We did a one-sheeter a few years ago that helped us a lot. Um I think this is probably more in-depth, but uh we we really need to get to one document that shows the entire strategy.

1:04:44 All right. Sandy, I Do you have anything else for us? All right. We are going to adjourn. We have a 7:00 executive session, so don't go anywhere too quickly. It's on a separate link, so please log on at the right time to that to the executive session link. Thank you, everybody. We are adjourned.