Commissioner and Staff,

Perhaps you can clarify the proposal. Using municipal debt through PDC as opposed to general fund income to build low income housing with many years of service life makes sense. Of course, it should be dispersed within higher rent development, such as the South Waterfront, and not revert to market rent after a period of years.

But increasing the debt limit for existing projects would result in fewer general fund dollars collected by the City's property taxes. Is that correct?

I think a discussion of the qualifying income targets is appropriate. Perhaps the PSU Urban Studies Program could undertake a study of other cities' income and labor profiles and projections of them for the future. That data could be used to reset the targets, perhaps lower.

The South Waterfront is a textbook case. Operation of OHSU and the district itself is dependent on entry wage services. Why not district level social services, including child care and tuition assistance, to accompany the housing, and paid for by the businesses requiring that labor?

As for increasing the PDC setaside from 16% to 30%, consider setting a schedule for a gradual increase, say 2-3% a year, with measurable goals each year required for the next increase. The construction trades are very busy and expensive now, in a few years, that may not be the case. That would be the time to focus on public residential projects.

The Council has been doing a great job, but this proposal may need more work.