Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and all value lost from them, someone else would purchase the property and continue to pay the property taxes. Councilor Kelly commented that he routinely walked eight blocks home from performances at the Hutt Center. Councilor Meisner remarked that he also walked home from the downtown area, though it was a little over a mile. He concurred with Councilor Bettman's reasons for supporting the tax exemption. Councilor Meisner underscored that no one in the City wished to restrict the downtown area to low- income housing. He said the development proposed by Ms. Tate and her partners presented a great opportunity and he commended them for taking the risk. He asserted that one successful example would bring others. He enthusiastically supported the resolution. Councilor Pap6 stressed that the council was not reviewing the MUPTE, as it had already done so and approved the use of it for the downtown area. He agreed with the favorable comments of his colleagues. He cautioned, regarding Item E, against discriminating based on "what we like and what we don't like." He said if someone qualified for the MUPTE the council should grant such an exemption with an even hand. Roll call vote; Consent Calendar Item D passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey reiterated that no motion was necessary on Item E. He called for council comments on the item. Councilor Taylor opposed the item for the same reasons she opposed Item D. She emphasized that the proposed exemption was farther from the downtown area than the previous one and was for rental properties. She opined that housing for students would be built whether there was an exemption or not. Councilor Bettman remarked that her opposition to Item E had nothing to do with personal preference. She averred she made policy based on what she thought was the public good. She felt there was already an abundance of rental housing in the area and adding another one would only serve to compete with the other landlords in the area who did not have a tax exemption. She indicated she would be more apt to support it had it provided opportunities for home ownership. Councilor Kelly was uncertain whether he would support this. He agreed that the way the MUPTE ordinance was set the council was to look at the exemptions on an application-by-application basis. He thought the proposed development was a higher and better use than the surface parking that existed there in the present. He noted the financial analysis on agenda packet page 143, which indicated a negative cash-flow without the ten-year tax exemption, while after ten years of the MUPTE, the property would pay approximately $34,000 in property tax per year. He related that he had been informed by one of the partners in the development that the building would not be built without the exemption. Councilor Kelly commented that when the MUPTE ordinance had been adopted, the majority of the council did not codify quality provisions that had been proposed at one point. He noted that the proposal indicated some quality features, such as a large front porch and balconies on the units, but nothing in the exemption would cause the builder to fulfill the intent of the initial design proposals. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 7 Regular Meeting