Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Zelenka said it seemed like a nice project. He related that he had taken a driving tour of the WUN <br />earlier in the day and had observed substantial development. He asserted that there were four projects under <br />construction and eight projects that had just been constructed. He believed the point of MUPTE was <br />intended to be an incentive to get projects built where they would not otherwise be built. He did not believe <br />there was any need for such an incentive in the University of Oregon area. He indicated he would oppose <br />the exemption. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor opposed the exemption for the reasons already stated. She averred it was “obviously <br />student housing” and it was “obviously being built for profit.” She thought anyone could say they could not <br />afford to build a project without a tax break. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman commented that while she appreciated that the WUN residents had weighed in, she felt <br />they only looked at a “narrow range of issues” and they were not in a position to “weigh the pros and cons.” <br />She said the neighborhood group had not participated in the budget process and had not had to “horse trade” <br />to fund things such as human services which “may be a higher priority than to provide a developer with a <br />profit.” <br /> <br />Councilor Clark pointed out that with the closing of the Westmoreland Student Housing there was a distinct <br />need for student housing in the University of Oregon area. He intended to support the MUPTE because he <br />believed additional student housing created less of a drain on low-income housing and this created more <br />opportunity for it to be available in the city. He noted that he had once resided in housing adjacent to the <br />existing house on the property and considered it “high time” the property was redeveloped. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon supported the addition of good quality student housing. She observed that the MUPTE <br />would provide a total exemption of $150,710 over ten years and reminded the council that in one budget <br />cycle, the council will have spent that amount of money or more to build council offices. She said this was <br />notable when talking about spending taxpayers’ dollars. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Poling, Solomon, and Clark voting <br />in favor and councilors Ortiz, Bettman, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in opposition. Mayor <br />Piercy voted in opposition of granting the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption to the <br />project and the motion failed. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy commented that she had been persuaded by Councilor Zelenka’s “look around” and his sense <br />that the MUPTE was not really needed for development in that area. <br /> <br /> <br />3. PUBLIC HEARING: <br /> <br />An Ordinance Concerning Manufactured Dwelling Park Closures; and Amending Sections 2.1060 <br />and 2.1086 of the Eugene Code, 1971 <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor invited Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development <br />Department, to the podium to provide a short overview of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Weinman explained that the City of Eugene was the first of four cities in recent history to pass <br />protections for owners of manufactured homes and manufactured dwelling parks. He said those protections <br />had become less effective over time as inflation had eroded “the lay of the land.” He related that all parks <br />were currently not covered and only special category tenants, those who were over 70 years old, those who <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2007 Page 6 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />