City Council - workshop

you Thank you. you you

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the July 15th, 2026 City Council work session. Thank you for joining us today in this hybrid meeting format. For work sessions like this one, there is no opportunity for public comment, and those wishing to access the meeting can do so by watching the live stream available on our website, the broadcast on Comcast Channel 21, or by calling into one of the phone numbers listed for this meeting on the City of Eugene's website and the public webcast and meetings materials page. Thank you again for joining us And I now call the July 15th, 2026 work session of the Eugene City Council to order. I'll turn things over to our city manager to introduce the first topic, which is a work session follow up on long range financial planning and the strategic plan.

Thank you, Mayor. As you said, this is a follow-up to the work session that Council had on Monday where you adopted budget principles, you adopted a service framework and strategic focus areas. Today will be a presentation of revised strategies under each of those focus areas. We received your feedback and we've put some adjustments together for your consideration. Nancy from Raftelis Hetrick will be joining us and leading us through part of this discussion. She has a brief slide deck. And with that, I'll turn it over to Nancy.

Thank you, Jenny. I appreciate that. It's nice to see you all again. Not in the room this time, but happy to be able to bring back to you some revised strategies that hopefully reflect your hopes and change expectations for the strategies within the strategic plan framework. Am I sharing my screen here, I think? Or Twyla, are you?

I'll run the slides for you.

Great, perfect, terrific. Okay, let's see, there I can see it. Okay, so I added this slide in, I think just to illustrate and remind all about how the strategic framework and the strategic plan Will be implemented and think this is an important context. So the strategic focus areas, which we reviewed and discussed on Monday, which were approved by council are listed there on the left. These are the big buckets. These are the big areas of interest and focus by council. They have some definition, which we have on on following slides. Just as a reminder, we're not looking to revisit those today because they've been approved, but those are important for. providing clear direction around the areas of interest by council. Cascading from that, though, are a set of specifically defined policy directed strategies. That's what we're revisiting today. Some of which are the same as we discussed on Monday, some of which have been added or revised based on council's feedback. From here, once approved by council, once you have developed a degree of competence and comfort in the strategies, it will shift to the staff. Staff will then develop and recommend to council tactics. These are the things that the city will be investing time and energy in over the course of the next two years in order to pursue those strategies. That's where it becomes really action-oriented and driving a lot of the work. of the organization. So I wanted to just bring that back into the room to remind us all that the strategy level is not the end of the line. It's the starting point for staff to be building budget recommendations and work planned elements. So if we go to the next slide, this is just a reminder of the focus areas and the definitions. Nothing has been a change. These were adopted, approved by council when we were in the room together on Monday. I'm now going to walk through each of those five focus areas with the strategies outlined in red to illustrate where there have been changes made. So I will bring it back for review, beginning with financial stability, which is the first of those five. So the format on these slides is a little bit different from Monday, and that is because I wanted to emphasize that the portion on the left is what was approved by council. So it has the name of the focus area and then the

Nancy, can you hear us? We just lost your audio for a moment. We cannot hear you still. Like anything changed on screen.

What did you say, Matt?

Hello, Councilor Selinka and Keating remotely as well. We can hear you too.

Everything sounds just good here.

Okay. There you are. You're back. I'm back? Okay.

Well, just let me know if it drops again. I was in the room last time, so I know how it feels. I will try to speak up also in case it's a volume situation. Anyway, so on the financial stability issue, There were no recommended changes. I will just point out a couple highlights from the conversation that we had. First up on that second strategy around building a long-term financial stability plan, that this is a lot of the work we're doing here today. And so this is setting the table for doing just that. These become kind of critical components along with the framework and the budget principles. So this is the launching pad for that strategy.

And then we also had some interest in some discussion around strengthen and diversify revenue.

And so really some interest in making sure that there's time and space to explore that in a meaningful way, which I know will be agendized and brought back before council. So no other changes on the strategy that I heard in the room on Monday. On the next slide, which is our community safety focus area again to the left is the description of what that looks like. And then we had some conversation and some suggestions for refinement to the strategies, so the second strategy there, you can see in red. Looks to add an emphasis and an acknowledgement that looking at resource allocation for 1st responders is going to be an important part of the work that is pursued over the next couple of years. And so that language was suggested when we were together in the room really specifically to ensure that that fire. Is reflected in the, and the needs of the fire department are reflected in the statement, but it's certainly the response to 1st address is 1st responders. Generally, the next area where we had some discussion and some request was around prevention and early intervention in the success statement. It was pointed out that that's incorporated in that. And so that last part of the statement, where it says through prevention, early intervention and effective response. We modified that last strategy to reflect that specifically. And so strengthen partnerships that support behavioral health crisis response and prevention and early intervention. And so that would be a modification that tries to make the connection between the success statement and the strategy that is articulated. If we move to the next slide, we have thriving and livable communities. So we had some conversation. So, counselor Keating brought up around animal services. There was some discussion around how that it gets incorporated in here and the discussion around working with partners and vendors as a part of that. There have been no modifications made to the strategies, but I would note that kind of going back to the framing slide that shows the interplay between strategies and tactics is that if there are specific programs or needs that are of interest to council that are being proposed. First of all, the city manager and staff are in the room listening, but that's where it comes to life. And so that might be a space where other proposals along those lines might emerge. You'll have some conversation, I'm sure, on that topic. But we didn't hear any consensus around modifications to the strategies in the thriving livable community on Monday. If we move to the next strategy or next focus area, housing and homelessness, we had a good deal of conversation around making sure that there was a strategy that really spoke more specifically to uplifting those who are in need or maybe experiencing houselessness. And so the services that are being delivered as a result, we've added additional strategy that says support access to services that help people achieve long term housing stability as a new strategy. This is. Really intended to reflect direct service provided to those in need beyond the strategy above that, which is really around coordinating. On homelessness response, and so trying to be more focused in that area, I'll go through the rest of these slides and then I will turn it back to the mayor to facilitate the conversation on the discussion if that's okay. So that that was inserted. And added as a, as a result. And then if we go to the next slide, which is the last of the 5 focus areas, we have transportation and infrastructure with the success statement there to left. We heard no changes to the strategies as presented again. And just a reminder that the tactics and the things the city would be working on will be driven extended from those strategies. So, with that update and that presentation, I know it's in your packet. I will turn it back to the mayor to facilitate the conversation and happy to obviously be a resource as is helpful for the conversation.

Thank you, Nancy, for that presentation. Thank you, staff, for your support in the room and for capturing so much of the discussion that we've had this weekend and weeks prior. I'll now open the floor for council discussion before turning to the council president to put a motion on the floor. Councillor Clark, sorry, Councillor Keating, Councillor Zelenka, and then Councillor Clark is how you order, and then Councillor Yee and Councillor Groves.

Thanks, Mayor. I plan to be brief. I just want to say thank you to Nancy and to our city manager for hearing us loud and clear on Monday and incorporating some of our suggestions. I'm supportive of all the suggestions that are in front of us on the thriving livable communities piece and in regard to animal services in particular. I may have misspoke Monday when I referenced that there's Oregon State statute that underscores a legal obligation for cities. There's pieces in there that reference counties and cities like Eugene have stepped up to fill certain gaps. But I really should have been more clear in that there are city code and in our ordinance language, is where our obligation lies. And I concur with Nancy in that highlighting those obligations as we get further into the actual brass tacks of this crisis. of this plan seems prudent. And I think that's where that larger conversation about our service providers, our partners, our not-for-profit partners should be. This 30,000-foot document is a strong one. I appreciate you incorporating the language around first responders, reflecting the need for this council's support of our fire and EMS personnel. And I'm ready to adopt what's in front of us as is. Again, appreciation to Nancy, to the team, and to our colleagues for going through this process. Appreciation. Thank you.

Councilor Zelenka.

Yeah, thank you. I see changes. I like what they end up saying. I will point out that on homelessness, I've said this many times, is that unless we really get at the root causes of homelessness, we're never going to tackle it and solve it to where we can get it down to a very small number. And those root causes are the lack of affordable housing, the lack of mental health services, and the lack of substance abuse services. Not all of which we have control over, most of which we don't have control over, but we can certainly help push to make sure that those things get worked on. Because if we don't tackle those very hard problems, and they've baked for decades, which is why we're in the position we're in, we're never going to be able to get there. but i think that the wording that uh proposed support access and services that help people achieve long-term housing stability uh gets at what i was talking about but i just wanted to make that point thank you counselor clark thank you mayor and i too appreciate the presentation and the work that's been done to clarify the conversation that we had before i

I UNDERSTAND COUNSELOR ZELENKA'S POINT. I AGREE WITH SOME OF IT. I DO, HOWEVER, HAVE SOME CONCERN AND I'D APPRECIATE THE CITY MANAGER'S THOUGHTS WHEN SHE READS THAT STRATEGY LANGUAGE, WHAT THE WORD Access means to her. For me, I've always had kind of a problem thinking access was a wiggle word because I wonder whether that means, you know, when I walk into a grocery store, there's access to all the food I want to eat, whatever I can afford to buy. And it doesn't mean somebody else should buy it for me.

Mm hmm.

And so I wonder what access means to her. Does that mean the city has a responsibility to provide in that which a county or a state or a federal government doesn't provide? And I think for the sake of building a budget, that's an important conversation. So I want to hear what the manager thinks the word access means.

I would preface, thank you for that question, I would preface it that any type of service that's being provided is a policy decision of this body. So I would not go and propose something unless I had direction from this council or we've continued to provide this service and it's the direction of council to continue to provide this service. When I read this sentence, I am thinking about helping to be a conduit to continue to provide services that we're providing right now and to enhance that through partnerships. It is not a statement of that we are solely responsible for homelessness. This is at the thousand foot level this is a collaborative regional issue this is not something that one person can solve and fix so that is my perspective i hope that helps um counselor yeah thank you very much it helps a little i would only i would only add to that that

A great deal of the access to services provided by the city of Eugene over the last several years have been predominantly funded by the federal government or the state government, and that funding is or soon will be going away. So are you saying that this strategy is the underpinning for us then transitioning that responsibility to provide those services that have been paid for by other partners to be our responsibility to pay for in the future and to maintain?

No, I'm not saying that. And that is, again, a policy decision of this council.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. So like Councillor Zelenka, I also liked the wording for the housing and homelessness added new item. I thought it was broad enough that it can get at a lot of different things that can affect people's housing stability beyond some of the things that we typically think of like shelter or basic needs, so I really did like it, and I appreciate our city manager's reading of it, of how it's not just about what we're doing, but helping our partners. It might not be money all the time, it might be other things, and I think the wording lends to that being more flexible in that way. But moving to the community safety bucket, I don't think, for me at least, adding and prevention and early intervention at the end of that strengthening partnerships is quite right. is better, but it's not quite right. I feel like it implies that the city's not doing this themselves, that we're doing it always through partners, and we do do that, that's accurate, but I think there are things that we do and we'll have to decide if we will continue to do that aren't through partnerships, it's just something we do ourselves. So I think for me it's not quite right, but it's getting better. That would be my feedback, and I'm curious to hear what the rest of the people say.

Councillor Groves, which one was that? Councillor Zelenka, it's the second I'm sorry, it's community safety, and the addition of prevention, early intervention to the strategies. But in a but with feedback about how that's been incorporated.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for the presentation. Nancy, I like the additions. I appreciate being heard on adding the resource allocation for first responders. In particular, our firefighters and the lack of growth to keep up with our population increases. I think that's very important. On the housing and homelessness piece. I agree with both what Councillor Zelenka said and Councillor Clark. And I want to add a piece I've become more aware of, and I'm not suggesting we add anything, but something we need to keep in mind with the work of privately funded downtown group that we have out on the streets right now, every one of those people I've talked with said one of the things this opportunity is doing for them is giving them work experience because just getting clean and And applying for jobs doesn't assure you're going to be employed. You need to have a history there. So opportunities that we see where we can have help businesses, help government employ some of these folks, I think is going to make a difference in the long term. survivability and long-term independence. So I just want to highlight that piece. Again, I'm not advocating for putting that specificity into this document, but I think it's something and I would ask all of us to kind of keep that in mind as we start working through issues around housing and homelessness and helping people in that situation. Thank you.

Councilor Kuczynski.

Thank you, and thank you for the revisions in general. They did a very good job of capturing. I was actually gonna bring up a similar point to the one that Councilor Ye brought up, which is that with the addition of prevention and early intervention, that does add to that, but if you take the broad view of community safety, which could include safety from fire, it could include safety from all kinds of things, implying that that prevention early intervention is only done through partnerships, I do think misses a lot of the things that the city does with our payroll tax, through our first responders and our fire programs. When we look at municipal court, when we look at some of our cultural and recreational programs that are targeted towards folks who may be at risk in some way, even things like the program that Randy was, that's not now being funded by the city, but Those kinds of things are prevention and early intervention that we do do as a city. And so I would actually suggest adding the words strengthen partnerships and programs. This would not imply, Councilor Clark, that we would be taking on ownership of a bunch of programs that we're not currently owning, but would say that continuing to have that focus on early intervention for all kinds of public safety issues. Because I do think when it was just behavioral health and crisis response, a lot of our behavioral health service is provided by partners, but when we start getting into the broader sense of early intervention and prevention, that is more of a different folks have different responsibilities, including some responsibilities that are directly the city's. That would be a suggestion for, I try not to wordsmith from the table, but that would be a suggestion for a tiny change that I think would address some pieces there.

Councillor Leitch.

Thank you. I had similar thoughts around that sentence as well. On Monday when we were looking at some amendments for the motion, I was furiously typing up what I thought would be the amendment to the motion, but I had included service, strengthened services and partnerships. That could be programs, but I think it does need some word in there to qualify the fact that we are providing as a city entity, some of these services. So everything else, though, I'm really appreciative of. I think it really captured what we were looking for on Monday and through this whole process. So I really appreciate that. So that's all I have. Thank you.

Councillor Zelenka.

Yeah, I agree with what what uh folks have been saying about that the community safety the last last strategy i think services works better than programs because programs is limiting and services are broader so um i think adding uh strengthened partnerships and services that support is is a good way to go on that one because it it shouldn't be just limited to the partnerships that we have because we do provide a lot of these services and they're very very important it's also consistent with the what we were talking about you know how homelessness and housing focus area about the three different areas that we need to support and those are included in this one as well so they overlap which makes me feel a lot better Those are so important. They need to show up in several places.

Thank you, Council. I'll add my voice and support for that clarification of strengthening partnerships or programs or services. Sounds like we have a slightly amended motion that I'll be turning to the Council President to bring forward in a moment. And with that, turn to the Council President to bring a motion forward.

Mayor? Move to approve the revised strategic plan framework with the following changes to attachment A to this AIS, add, quote, and services, end quote, to community safety's strategy four.

Second.

Any further discussion from council? Seeing none, I'll now take a vote for this motion. All in favor, please raise your hands. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. And the motion passes unanimously with a vote of eight to zero. Thank you, council, and thank you, staff. This concludes our first agenda item today. I'll turn back to the city manager for our second topic, which is a city manager update.

Thank you, Mayor. The initiative petition to establish a Eugene Clean Energy Fund in Eugene is still circulating for signatures. Completed petition sheets are due by Friday on Monday, July 27th to the city recorder. And petitioners must collect 8,726 valid signatures in order to qualify for the ballot. Once the signature sheets are submitted, the city and the county get a total of 30 days to verify the sheets and validate the signatures. And the last day for a certified petition to automatically qualify for the November election is August 5th, 2026. One thing of note, so per our code, council must be presented with possible options for action no later than 20 days after the recorder certifies an initiative petition.

Thank you, city manager. Questions from council? Is there a question from Councillor Leitch?

Yeah, just if Council wanted to respond, what is the timeline for a Council-led ballot response to the initiative?

Just so I understand the question, if it gets on the November ballot, what would be, got it.

And just for clarification, when you say response, is it taking one of the four actions like encouraging adoption or are you looking to refer a competing measure? The first thing you said. Okay.

Oh, the four.

Yeah, the question is simply what the timeline would be after they're presented at the 20 days. You don't really have a timeline on that one if you're just looking to encourage people to vote for it or vote against it. So what you're presented with at that 20-day mark is here's your options, this is it, but then it is, unless you were looking to actually put another competing ballot on the measure,

Yeah, a competing measure would have to be filed with the county by September 3rd, and so we'd have to walk back. That's not what she's looking for. Okay.

It would just simply be you stating your opinion, encouraging people, no timeline associated with that.

Okay, thank you. And it sounds like we would not have time if we wanted to put in a competing measure.

Well, I think if we have, once it's, once it's certified, we would be looking for a time potentially during break to schedule that virtual only session to present options. So it is possible.

And just for a point of information, what is the initiative position is for an ordinance and not a protected ordinance. So if this is referred to the ballot and is approved by the voters, you as the city council would have authority to amend it. So it's not a charter amendment. It's unlike some of the other initiative petitions that we've actually talked about at this table before. So with that tight timeline kind of giving us a little if you wanted to refer something that was competing, you would, as a council, have an opportunity, if it's passed by the voters, to change it through ordinance, and a majority vote of the council would be able to change it. Great, thank you.

Councilor Kuczynski.

Just for clarity's sake, I feel like you referenced that there were four options that we would be presented with. What were those four options? Katie will.

So the four options are you could just directly adopt the ordinance by initiative petition. You could, well that one is related to a referendum. So that one doesn't work. You could vote to just urge adoption or defeat of the initiative petition. So that's just a statement to the voters. And then the alternative option is to put an alternative measure forward. So the fourth one is actually specific to referendums.

And the fourth one could be do nothing.

Which is often what you've chosen to do. The 20 days that we need that's established in code, if in fact that would be done through a virtual meeting because you are on break, as was raised by Councilor Leach. But we need to meet that 20-day code, so we'd have to call a special meeting just to, and it really is just to present it. No action at all is required at that time.

Thank you, Saft, and thank you, City Attorney. Councillor Keating.

Thank you, Mayor. Just to be perfectly transparent, it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone, I signed the petition. I was the second signature on the petition, right behind former Mayor Kitty Piercy. I hope that 8,720-plus people Signatures are valid. I hope that when the time comes that this body urges adoption, but even if this body does nothing. I hope that voters come November recognize the merit of of. of this endeavor. It's shown to have worked in Portland, and it could be a game changer in regard to investing in climate action locally. So at the time when it's back in front of us, again, probably no surprise, I will be advocating and urging adoption, but that's cart before the horse. Thank you. Thank you, city manager, and thank you, Katie, for the update and the timeline in regard to the effort to validate said signatures. If those signatures aren't validated, just out of curiosity, or if the numbers are low, it's my understanding that the team that's collecting the signature still have another another they they can still go back to the drawing board is that or not back to the drawing board they can still collect signatures in addition or is the the the date i think you've been i can't recall if you mentioned monday or friday as per my notes um is that is that that date the final deadline drop dead deadline that those 8726 signatures have to be about um completely turned in invalid?

That date is the last date that they can turn in signatures.

Okay.

The validation happens after that. Okay, and once if they if it goes through the validation process so city records Recorder's office does an initial verification of the sheets and then it goes to the county for validating the signatures But at that point if they're eight thousand seven hundred and twenty set twenty five So we're one short. They cannot submit new signature sheets Noted.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification

Thank you, staff. Thank you, council. And thank you, city manager, for that update. This concludes our second agenda item today. And now we will turn back to the city manager for our third topic, which is a work session on an ordinance concerning housing production incentives.

Thank you. So following a public hearing last month, this item was an opportunity for council to consider action or continue discussion of a proposed ordinance enabling two housing production initiatives, the two property tax exemption programs aimed to support the production of moderate income housing along transit corridors across the city, and the second is the creation of housing in commercial centers. Staff's here to answer any questions that you have.

City Manager? Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I'm Anne Fifield, the Economic Development Manager in the Community Development Division. I'm here with Amanda D'Souza today, and we're here with a proposal to establish two new incentives to encourage the construction of new housing across Eugene, both market rate and for moderate income households. We presented the proposal to you in February. We had a public hearing in June and today you can vote on the proposal and we're here to answer any questions you may have. And I'll turn it over to Amanda who will recap all the details of the incentive program.

Thank you, Anne. Good afternoon, Councilors and Mayor. The proposals we're talking about today emerged out of the City's Urban Growth Strategies work, which is a project identifying the tools, actions, policies, and land needed for the next 20 years to support housing and living wage jobs in Eugene. Before we dig back into the proposed incentives, I'll remind you of the need that these programs are trying to address. As part of the Urban Growth Strategy's work, you've heard about the state's new Oregon Housing Needs Analysis, or ONA, which has changed how cities must plan for future housing needs within the urban growth boundary. Rather than planning only for population growth, we now also need to account for decades of housing under production and must show what actions we're taking to address this need. Using the 2026 ONA, we know Eugene needs 26,000 new dwelling units in the next 20 years. To achieve this, we will need to produce 70% more units annually for the next 10 years compared to the last 10 years. Since 2013, we've averaged about 950 new units per year. The ONA states will need to be producing up to 1,600 units per year. Ongoing market challenges mean this is going to remain a steep hill to climb. In addition to demonstrating how we intend to meet our overall need, the state also requires we show how we're meeting Eugene's specific affordability needs. This chart shows how those 26,000 units are broken up over five affordability buckets, which are based on area median income, or AMI. On the far left are new units needed for households with the lowest incomes. The bars in green are units needed for households making less than 80% of AMI, which is typically a level of affordability that can only be provided through subsidized affordable housing. For households earning 60% AMI and below, the two buckets on the left, we have federal, state, and local tools to boost production. This includes incentives like the Low Income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption, or LRPD, federal home funds, and the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which you just voted on a couple days ago. The proposed housing production incentives you're considering today target the three buckets on the right because we have limited or no tools for these. The first is moderate income housing, which in this chart is designated as 80 to 120% of AMI. For the proposed programs, we're also considering moderate income to include the 60 to 80% range, since most affordable housing tools are only available for projects at or below 60% of AMI. According to the ONA, we need almost 7,000 new housing units in that 60 to 120% AMI range in the next 20 years to meet our need. You are also considering a tool for market rate housing, which is considered to be anything over 120 percent of AMI. The ONUS says we need over 7,000 market rate units in the next 20 years to meet our need. This graphic shows the three proposed housing production incentives you've been considering. The first two are 10-year property tax exemptions, one for moderate income housing, and one for housing and commercial centers. The third is a revolving loan fund for the moderate income housing. As Ann mentioned, we've previewed these for you last fall, and in February, you directed staff to prepare ordinances, schedule a public hearing, and schedule a follow-up work session on all three programs. Today's discussion is focused on two of the programs, specifically the two tax exemptions. Last month, you held a public hearing on an ordinance that would implement these two programs. Today is an opportunity for you to consider action on that ordinance. The public hearing on the moderate income revolving loan fund is currently scheduled for September 21st. I'll now dig into the details of the tax exemption programs. The draft ordinance that implements these programs is in Attachment A, and an overview of both programs is in Attachment B. The two new proposed 10-year tax exemption programs are enabled by a state statute for transit-supportive multi-unit housing. These are the same statutes that enable MUPD, our existing housing incentive program focused on downtown. The tax exemption would only apply to the new improvements, and similar to the MUPD and LRPD, it would decrease operating costs during a project's exemption years. I'll first walk through the highlights for the tax exemption for moderate-income housing. This first proposed program, it's designed to fill a gap in the city's existing housing incentive program, as none of the current tax incentive programs are geared towards moderate income housing. That means affordable to households earning between 60 and 120% of area median income. The LRT is available citywide, but only for projects 60% AMI and below. And the MUPTI supports market rate, but is only available downtown. The intent for this tool is to incentivize developers who are already considering projects that are close to this affordability range to lower their rents or prices and commit to a decade of moderate income affordability so that they can qualify for the program which would lower their operating costs and make the project pencil. Both rental and home ownership are eligible. Projects must have a minimum of four units and 25 units per acre. The proposed boundary for this program is any property within a quarter mile of a transit line, which is the broadest geography allowed by the state statutes which were created to specifically incentivize transit-oriented development. This map shows the eligible properties, and I'll talk more about this map in a minute. The state statutes that enable the program require that projects be completed by 2032. Both the tax exemption programs are proposed as pilots using 2032 as the end of the pilot period for this project with an update within two years. And then finally, the application process has elements similar to the LRPD, which includes a 60-day turnaround and consideration as a council priority agenda item. I'll briefly touch on the methodology that we use to determine property eligibility. So we started with this map on the left. This is what we showed you in February. And this shows a general quarter mile buffer around fixed transit routes, which were considered to be routes that have regular service at least once an hour. We then applied a few filters to end up with the map on the right, which is what's included in the ordinance. The first filter was that at least 80% of the property needed to be in the buffer to be included. And then for both tax exemptions, in response to concerns about possibly incentivizing development of housing near industrial uses, we excluded properties if they were within 300 feet of properties zoned E2 and I2, and within 500 feet of properties zoned I3. New housing could still be built on those properties if zoning allowed it, but it would not be eligible for these incentive programs. Additionally, properties in the UGB that meet the criteria but aren't in city limits would be eligible if they are annexed, which is a possible incentive for owners to annex their properties. The other tax exemption program is focused on housing in commercial centers. This program has no affordability restrictions and would incentivize the development of more market rate housing. As I mentioned, we need to see over 7,000 new units for 120% AMI or more. The only significant financial incentives we have to support market rate housing are the standard and accelerated MUPTI programs, which are only available downtown. And it's unlikely we'll be able to rely on downtown housing development to meet that entire need, given the many headwinds you're familiar with that make downtown development challenging. Like the moderate income housing program, rental or home ownership are eligible, and the same project size minimums would apply. The proposed geographic boundary allows with the center's concept discussed in the new chapters of the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan. This map shows where eligible properties would be located, and I'll talk through this map in a minute. This program includes the same 2032 pilot period. And finally, for project requirements and application process, the proposed program uses the accelerated MAPTI parameters. This includes a 60-day application turnaround, council priority agenda item, staff review of applications, and projects would still need to meet all seven MAPTI public benefit criteria. So for this tax exemption, we started with this map on the left, which shows three types of centers identified through Envision Eugene and the city's planning for future growth and development. Those centers are the downtown center shown in yellow, core commercial center shown in orange, and neighborhood center shown in red. We've proposed this program apply to the core commercial and downtown centers, so the orange and yellow, but not the neighborhood center shown in red. Core commercial centers are typically located near transit and provide convenient access to people's daily needs like housing, jobs, groceries, schools, etc. The downtown center encompasses the downtown core, riverfront, midtown, and other high density residential commercial areas nearby. Notably, it is much larger than the existing MUPTI boundary. Offering the incentive in these two center types would support the creation of mixed use center. Before the ordinance, we started with the map on the left and applied the same filters to get the map on the right, including removing properties if close to industrial uses and making sure the properties are within a quarter mile transit buffer. We also looked at the zoning of each property in each center to make sure the only properties with compatible zoning were included. And the zoning of adjacent properties, we also looked at those to see if there were any that had development potential. These centers all have the right zoning and entitlements to accommodate this type of housing that we want to see. The intent is for this tool to get those properties off the sidelines and into feasible territory. Council held a public hearing on the draft tax exemption ordinance in attachment A on June 15th. There is a typo there. There were four speakers and three spoke in favor. The speaker who offered comments against the ordinance indicated they did not believe property tax exemptions should be offered to individuals and expressed concerns about student housing projects along Franklin. I'll note that housing design for students has been ineligible for tax exemptions since 2015, and that restriction is carried over to the proposed programs. We also received three written comments in favor of the ordinance, which are provided in attachment D. And as a reminder, the public hearing on the moderate income revolving loan fund is scheduled for September 21st. I'll end with an overview of the options you're considering today for the two proposed tax assumptions. You could choose to approve the proposed ordinance in attachment A. You could modify the programs and direct the city manager to bring back a revised ordinance for action, or you can choose not to adopt the ordinance. And with that, we'll hand it back to you for discussion.

Thank you, staff, for that presentation. Before opening up for council discussion, I want to just observe, I appreciate this presentation connecting from a very large number and a high level in terms of needs that our community has relative to housing across a whole diversity of different household types and also income levels, and then trying to connect the policy actions and the work that we're doing as a city with the tools we have available to us to create more of the housing that the data has told us very clearly that our community needs, both people who are renting housing and people who are seeking to own housing or currently own housing. So my clarifying question, just to begin, because this is something that is often misunderstood in public conversations, is I'm wondering if Anne, Amanda, could you just briefly describe the difference between utilizing this type of incentive, a tax exemption incentive, in comparison to, say, a direct funding of housing production?

With direct funding, there's funds directly transferred from the public agency to the Housing Development Party. With a tax exemption, the public agencies do not get tax revenue for new development for the exemption period, and for these programs it's up to 10 years. And so it delays getting that new tax revenue, but there is evidence to show that the tax incentive programs incentivize new development that otherwise would not have happened. So one could say you're delaying it, but you're also actually eventually getting it. You may never get it if you don't provide the incentive. So there's no out-of-pocket expense with the tax exemption program.

And oftentimes when we're talking about housing and there's an idea about direct funding, that might come from an existing fund or a new bond or a fund that can be literally directly dollars, a check written and handed to someone who is building that housing. In this case, what you're describing is rather than adding to the amount of money available to build the housing, we're subtracting from the costs that the housing has to cover in order to be feasible. That's correct. And that is the place of misunderstanding that we often encounter. The second, because you just mentioned it, and I think this is always helpful for us to talk about, when there is a property that receives a tax exemption for new development, sometimes information is presented to me as an understanding from the public that that property is paying no taxes, no property taxes. Can you just describe specifically the difference between new improvement and the continuation of property tax payment that occurs on these properties during the 10-year period that would be proposed?

Property taxes are paid on the value of the land and the value of the improvement on top of the land. With these tax exemptions, properties continue to pay property taxes on the value of the land. It's the new improvement that is exempted over that 10-year period.

Thank you, very much appreciated. Those are common conversation points in the community and it's great to share them in a public meeting when many more people might have access to that information. I'll now open the floor to council discussion, questions from council or comments, feedback. Councillor Zelenka.

I'm muted, can you hear me?

We can hear you now, Councillor.

The LRPD program, besides being my favorite acronym, LRPD, LRPD, LRPD, really works. 43 projects, 2200 units, it really does work. But it's only for 60% or below average median income. That means rent for a studio of 1,033, which is quite a bit. And we don't have any tools for that 60 to 120% range. and again the only affordable housing units that we get and this is moderate income housing i realize that is is the ones that we get from uh that we subsidize the market provides zero affordable housing units and uh i wish we would be using the full capability of the construction excite task and one one percent to add to our toolbox so we could get more affordable housing than subsidized but that's a comment for a different day i wish it was in this package and i'm not a fan of mufti in part because in within the same block we saw a building get built with affordable with mufti and without so whether or not it's actually needed is is a really big question but the market is not providing this type of moderate income housing at 60 to 120% income level. And so that makes me wanna look at this more closely and support it. On the commercial center one, a question about that. It's limited to units that are four to 25 units per acre. I need a sense of what that looks like, examples of what 25 maximum units per acre would look like. Maybe the high-rise ones, high-rise multifamily housing on Franklin, what's that in units per acre?

I WILL CLARIFY THAT THE MINIMUM SIZE IS EITHER FOUR UNITS IN THE PROJECT TOTAL, AND IT HAS TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 25 UNITS PER ACRE. OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DON'T KNOW A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT. I COULD SHOW YOU WHAT THE DENSITY IS.

YEAH, YOU'RE TESTING OUR DESIGN ABILITIES. I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT THAT DENSITY LOOKS LIKE. WE CAN GET THAT BACK TO YOU, COUNCILOR.

YEAH, OKAY. WELL, THOSE ARE WAY HIGHER THAN 25, THE ONES ON FRANKLIN.

Those are in the hundreds, Councillor, just to clarify, and it would depend on the project.

Exactly. Okay. I don't think we have any other questions on these. Thank you.

Other questions from Council? Councillor Kuczynski.

Yes, thank you. I would just like to thank you for bringing this forward. I know that the idea of these incentives can be controversial. On my daily commute, I walk past three or four buildings that received MAPTI. Some of them 20, 30 years ago received MAPTI. And several of those buildings are providing housing that is, even if they weren't constructed that way initially, are currently providing housing that is affordable to people with moderate incomes. And I found even a couple of cases where they're providing housing that is affordable to people with low incomes over the years. And so I am also walking past at least two vacant lots that are constrained in some way that would make it difficult to have projects to pencil on those, but would be really great locations for housing. And one of the things that this program does is it helps make those vacant lots that are next to other housing, that are next to other housing of a similar density, be more feasible to have housing go in there and housing that people can afford go in there. AND SO I'M REALLY HAPPY TO SEE THIS MOVE FORWARD. AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK ON IT.

COUNCILOR CLARK.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M GOING TO RESIST THE URGE TO RESPOND TO MY COLLEAGUES' COMMENTS. BUT I WILL ASK, AND I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THIS IS A QUESTION FOR AMANDA OR WHETHER IT'S FOR ANN OR FOR WHOM THIS QUESTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED, BUT THE OWNER REQUIREMENTS OF 1600 UNITS, What does the state law dictate that the city must do over the next several years if we don't reach the owner requirements?

Yeah, that's a good question. And I think it's actually a good question for the planning division, but I can answer with what I know, which is that the state sets these targets that we need to be working towards. And the requirement for the city is that we need to be taking actions to help meet that need. And so I believe that the accountability piece is whether or not we are taking the actual steps. So implementing these things like more housing incentive programs. I know planning has a whole list of housing production strategies that they're going through, including looking at zoning, flexibility, things like that. So my understanding is that the requirement is that we are taking actions to meet that need.

What if council has inadvertently screwed up the market so badly that none of these incentives work? What's the state law dictate that the city do if for a multiple of years, we don't see the production required by the owner?

I am not sure we know the answer to that. I know there is the, I believe it's called the Housing Accountability and maybe Production Office. And I believe we would be assigned to work with them. And I'm not sure what that process looks like. But that's what I know.

Is Laura there or anyone with some access to legal to be able to? Lauren is coming up, yes. Lauren, sorry.

Okay, now I'm settled. Good afternoon, Council Clerk Lauren Summers, Assistant City Attorney.

I unfortunately don't have that much more information to give you than Amanda already has. It is true that there are some deadlines for cities to take particular actions, and if the city doesn't make progress, which could look like actual construction of units, but it could also look like putting things in place to incentivize the development of housing or remove barriers to the development of housing. At some point, the local government would be assigned to work with the HAPO, the Housing Accountability and Production Office, and there are sort of a range of actions that HAPO can take, including actually providing additional resources to the city and helping them kind of work through other production strategies that they might not have been thinking about. But that's not something that is going to happen soon. The city has time, we still have time under our state mandated deadlines to take a bunch of these required housing actions. And you'll see planning staff coming back to you with various UGS adoption packages that are tailored to meet those state housing requirements.

I'm comforted to know that. My question is really around the hammer that the state would use if the city isn't successful. And it sounds like we're forced to work with a state agency. I'm not sure what that means, and I'm not sure you have an answer that's in more detail than that. So I guess I'll live with it. But if you have any further information about what the state's authority in relation to the city's authority is, As far as how we deal with the local market, I'd be interested to know.

That is something that staff could probably get back to you on. And I will also say that the HAPO is a pretty new agency also. They are in the process of standing themselves up and figuring out all of their authorities and how they're going to exercise them. So it's like a number of things in the kind of the state housing sphere right now. It's a little bit of a moving target, but we can, staff could get you more information about that.

Thank you very much.

I see Councillor Zelenka with a question for the next round and I'm gonna ask staff one more to help connect more of these dots into this work. So oftentimes when we imagine and conceptualize or visualize our city, we see our downtown center in the downtown core as a place that is the sort of hub with many spokes and energy flowing into it, energy flowing out of it. Downtown's incredibly important for so many reasons to the success of our community. In the proposals and the way that with urban growth strategies, our housing production work, and housing and commercial centers, incentive proposals. This really is looking more closely at the idea of neighborhood centers, which you've brought up a couple of times as concepts. And we talk about neighborhood centers in the hearts of our neighborhoods in different ways. We oftentimes are talking about them as the places that people might be able to walk to in their community to be able to access some of their daily basic needs. They may not be able to walk or bike or use transit to get everywhere in our community, but there might be some things nearby that are accessible. And so I'm curious if you could share a little bit of feedback on two things. One is how these commercial centers and these overlays connect to our other transportation planning work, our bicycle and pedestrian work, in some cases where there might be schools adjacent to these locations, safe routes to schools. How we're making sure that as we're creating new areas of intensity of development that are at the heart of a walkable neighborhood, that it is actually easy for people to be able to do that. And I know that we have this information in our plans, but I would just like for you to speak to some of it. And then the other piece is related to the environment, the physical environment in these centers. And that as we're thinking about the hearts of neighborhoods, how is our development code guiding the creation of edges of streets that are active, that feel sociable, that are friendly to the pedestrian. How is there opportunity for mixed use to still be integrated with these proposals? Because that's an important part of there being a really vibrant center to neighborhoods. And I'm just curious if you can speak a little bit to those opportunities.

Yes, so this will focus just on the tax exemption for core commercial centers. So I do want to clarify that the centers work identify three types of centers, downtown centers, core commercial, and neighborhood centers. The tax exemption as proposed really focuses on the downtown and the core commercial, because those were identified through their access to transit. And so that came out of the Envision Eugene planning process. I know that the planning division did a lot of community engagement, working with the community to identify what they felt was a center to them, where they wanted to see a mixed use center. The centers, as I mentioned, are typically located near transit. They provide convenient access to people's daily needs like housing, jobs, groceries, schools, and services. And so definitely the LTD's access to those centers was a major part of them being determined to be commercial centers. And then talking about the possibility of incentivizing mixed use and pedestrian-friendly elements to those buildings. So this tax exemption, as I mentioned, is modeled off the MEPTI framework, which does include a design review process with our urban designer. And so we have four categories of things we're looking at in terms of design and working with the developer on. to facilitate good design and one of those elements is looking at the pedestrian experience of the building for the person who's not living in it but who's walking next to it, biking next to it, driving next to it. And so that requirement will be still embedded in the program. The project will be required as the drawings are attached to the approval resolution, they are required to deliver on the drawings that they are showing us and that have been approved by our urban designer. And then we've also preserved the ability to exempt commercial uses. And so that element is that commercial uses can be included in the property tax exemption if they provide a public benefit. So we will be evaluating whether they do. We'll be bringing that to council, and council would be considering whether THEIR COMMERCIAL USE PROVIDES A PUBLIC BENEFIT, AND SO IT IS POSSIBLE TO INCENTIVIZE MIXED USE THAT WAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TOUCHING ON THOSE ASPECTS OF THIS WORK. COUNSELOR ZELENKA?

THANK YOU. SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR THE COMMERCIAL CENTER, TAX EXEMPTION, THERE'S NO INCOME RESTRICTIONS, CORRECT?

CORRECT. THERE'S NO INCOME RESTRICTIONS. THERE IS STILL THE MODERATE INCOME HOUSING REQUIREMENT, SO THEY WOULD MAKE THAT CONTRIBUTION EITHER THROUGH PAYING THE FEE, WHICH IS 10% OF THEIR TOTAL TAX EXEMPTION, OR THEY WOULD HAVE TO DESIGNATE 30% OF THE UNITS TO BE MODERATE INCOME. AND SO THAT'S, IT HAS TO BE UP TO 120% AMI.

YEAH, RIGHT, WHICH WE PUT IN YEARS AGO. WHICH MAP, SO THE MODERATE COMMERCIAL CENTER IS WHICH MAP IS THAT? CAN YOU SHOW THAT ON THE SCREEN? THAT'S EXHIBIT A1, CORRECT? SO THAT WOULD BE THE EXPANSION OF MUPKEY INTO THESE AREAS THAT ARE IN BLUE.

SO THIS IS THE COMMERCIAL EXEMPTIONS ONE. LET'S SEE. THAT'S SHOWING. DO I HAVE TO SHARE MY SCREEN AGAIN? YES, WE CAN SEE THAT.

okay but you all sometimes cannot yes so this is the commercial is that where you're asking for the commercial exemption yep yeah i'm not seeing that on the screen but yeah is that um exhibit a1 i can't see what you're seeing Which would be page 26 of your packet. So that would be the expansion. It's pretty substantial. And then how does that relate to page 31, which is the transit oriented, which is like half the city.

Yeah, so page 31, that would be for moderate-income projects. So if they were building moderate, then it would be that green.

Not commercial centers. So this is the 60% to 120% in.

Yeah.

So pretty substantial increase in the use of MUFTI, but on the moderate-income list.

They'd be required to be built.

Respected by income.

Yep, yep, exactly.

I'm wondering if the chair would entertain separate motions on the two different incentive packages, the moderate income and the commercial centers, when I put forward the motions. If not, I can make a motion to separate.

It's all one ordinance. So that would be. It would have to be a motion to amend to remove something from the ordinance because what the current motion is is to adopt a single ordinance that encapsulates it all. So it wouldn't be possible to have, you could say you don't wanna do one and we can return back with a modified ordinance. But as it stands right now, you couldn't adopt the ordinance without both of them in there. Okay.

Councilor Groves?

Thank you, Mayor. I thought I was going to get through this without a comment or a question, but Amanda, when I heard you say commercial exemption, if it qualified for community benefit, what's that look like? Because to me, If they exist, they're paying taxes, and they hire people, that seems like a community benefit. Is there more than that?

No, the language is, I would say, probably intentionally vague. It's up to council to determine what they deem something to be a public benefit. So we left it vague. THAT WAY. AND THE STATE STATUTES ALLOW THAT AS WELL. THEY SAY THE STATE STATUTES ARE ALSO VAGUE ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES THE PUBLIC BENEFIT. I THINK IT LOOKS PROBABLY DIFFERENT FOR EACH COMMUNITY. IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT BASED ON THE LOCATION, BUT IT WOULD BE UP TO YOUR DISCRETION TO DETERMINE IF IT'S A PUBLIC BENEFIT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL. I'LL NOW TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILOR KEATING.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. CAN YOU HEAR ME?

YES.

What's the review process if this council determines a public benefit at one point and then the use changes five, ten years down the road that subjectively isn't a public benefit? What's the review process at that point?

Good question. Well, if it's at 10 years, that's an easy answer because the exemption would be over and I guess all the strings that we've attached to the project would no longer apply. I guess the way the resolution works, we outline what the public benefit is. And so if they were just going to have commercial uses on the ground floor and that's what was approved, I think they would have to continue commercial uses. I think there would be flexibility if a tenant came in and out. If they were, I'm trying to think of an example of what pivot would happen that we would be concerned about.

If it were a retail use, if there was an initial proposed retail use and then it shifted to something that was perceived as undesirable, I don't think that...

THEY VIOLATED THE INCOME THEY VIOLATED THE INCOME RESTRICTIONS.

RESTRICTIONS. I THINK YOU ARE ASKING I THINK YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL SPACE.

ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL SPACE.

I AM. I AM.

WE HAVEN'T RUN INTO THAT.

WE HAVEN'T RUN INTO THAT.

WE HAVE ONLY HAD, I GUESS, A WE HAVE ONLY HAD, I GUESS, A COUPLE, RIGHT NOW ONLY ONE COUPLE, RIGHT NOW ONLY ONE COMMERCIAL EXEMPTION THAT HAS BEEN COMMERCIAL EXEMPTION THAT HAS BEEN USED AND THAT WAS THE GORDON USED AND THAT WAS THE GORDON LOFS WHICH IS IN THE FIFTH LOFS WHICH IS IN THE FIFTH STREET MARKET AREA. STREET MARKET AREA. SO WE HAVE NEVER RUN INTO THAT SO WE HAVE NEVER R

Okay.

We can think about how we capture that in the approval resolution.

That would be welcome. I would welcome having those guardrails. If a place tells us that they're going to weave in a community center or a community space and then they don't fulfill that promise, several years down the road this body should have the ability to um to leverage appropriately or fundamentally the use changes um so thank you for that um well i do wish that we would be we would start with um uh providing incentives along tier one transportation lines i recognize that um This is this effort. This approach is more broad and probably satisfies state law better than if we were just to restrict to tier one transportation lines. Tier one, as I interpret it, transit lines that are top priority to be plowed in inclement weather would be a tier one transportation line. But I don't want perfect to be the enemy of the good. But I am concerned that some of the proposed areas are along transit lines that are continuously threatened. What happens if our LTD partners suffer massive shortfalls and have to cut into lines, transit lines? Unfortunately, I hope that doesn't happen. But some of the service areas are only being served once an hour already and what happens if our transit service provider in this community were to scale back even further and we're providing incentives to build along transit lines that are tenuous at best.

That's a very good question, Councilor Keating, and one that we've talked about, especially we know that LTD is about to start their long-range strategic planning process, which could impact the routes. As I mentioned, we plan on coming back in two years with an update on the program, so if there's any routes that have changed or just anything about the programs that we want to amend, that would be a great point to make those changes, and again, we've proposed it as a pilot, so we'll also be coming back near the end of that pilot to talk about what we want to do next. We've intentionally built in check-in points, allowing opportunities to adjust the program as needed to respond to various factors.

Great. So it's my understanding then that those check-in points are every two years.

We propose one for two years. At the two-year mark, we can talk about a next one. And that would be in 2029. Yeah, 2029 is the intended check-in point.

I would appreciate that. uh that that review every two years um so thank you uh i look forward to supporting um uh counselor leach's motion pending motion thank you thank you council uh i will counselors like is your hand still up or is this a new a new quick question uh yes counselor uh just one one minute and one quick question yeah so

This puts the program in place. It doesn't approve any projects. All projects that would apply still have to come back to council for approval, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you. And I'll now turn to the council president to put a motion forward.

Thank you. Move to approve the ordinance in attachment A to this AIS, an ordinance concerning housing production incentives and adding sections 2.950, 2.951, and 2.952 to the Eugene Code 1971. Second.

Any further discussion from council? Seeing none, I'll now take a vote for this motion. All in favor? Councillors, please raise your hands. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. And the motion passes with a vote of eight to zero. Thank you, staff, for that presentation and all of the many layers of work that have gone into this. Our community cares deeply about housing affordability, about the access to affordable housing, about the production of housing and the stability that it provides for every person who is here. And this is an important piece of that work. So appreciate the many months and in some cases years of effort that have gone into this conversation. Thank you everyone. That does conclude our agenda for today. And I will now close the July 15th, 2026 city council work session, but not without saying thank you to city council for your time in this first heavy half of 2026. We're past the midpoint of the year, but we will return in our regular meetings after the council break, and we'll see you again on September 8th, if not for a remote meeting in between. And thank you all for your time today. We are adjourned.