Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Zelenka asked the council to consider having the discussion first. He did not believe that two weeks would make a big difference in Mr. Newland’s timeline. Councilor Poling could not support postponing the item. He underscored that Mr. Newland followed all of the rules the City had set. He said Mr. Newland should not be punished just because the council had changed its collective mind and decided to revisit the MUPTE program. Councilor Clark opposed postponement. He averred that a delay would create a significant burden for Mr. Newland. He reiterated that the applicant had abided by the rules. He added that the opportunity to have something like this project built in the University area alleviated issues the Rental Housing Program dealt with in “a very common sense way.” He said the rental program worked in the City to alleviate rundown student housing and this was an opportunity to build brand new “state-of-the-art” student housing. Councilor Ortiz also could not support postponement. She felt it would be akin to moving the bar for Mr. Newland. She stressed that he had applied for the MUPTE under the current criteria and if the council said the City would begin processing applications for the program differently starting tomorrow and he applied at that time she would feel differently. Councilor Pryor concurred. He averred that the current MUPTE was adequate. He did not think the discussion the council would have should bear on this particular application. Councilor Taylor declared that the MUPTE was never supposed to be automatic; it was a City Council decision. She opined that there would be development whether the City granted a tax break or not. She felt that just because it was going to be a good project did not mean it should receive the tax exemption. Roll call vote; the motion to postpone failed, 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in favor. Councilor Bettman agreed that Mr. Newland was “a nice man” and the project was a good one. She took issue with the notion of subsidizing student housing. She averred that the concentration of students in the area put a burden on the infrastructure. She thought a lot of construction was happening in the campus area and would continue without the exemption. She opposed giving a tax break for student housing as the vacancy rate was low and it was very profitable. She supported granting a MUPTE in certain neighbor- hoods and under certain circumstances. She did not believe it was justifiable to forego tax dollars needed to provide services in this case. Councilor Zelenka complimented Mr. Newland on his proposal and his outreach to councilors and to the neighborhood. He said the notion that Mr. Newland had followed the rules was “not good enough” for him. He projected the exemption to amount to $340,000 over ten years. He underscored that he wished to ensure that granting a MUPTE to this particular project was the right thing to do. He agreed that housing would be built regardless, but he did not believe it would be of the quality of Mr. Newland’s project. He noted that another applicant with a similar project in the same area had been turned down by the council recently. Councilor Solomon stressed that a MUPTE did not mean there were no taxes paid as the property owner continued to pay taxes on the land value. She believed that it was the responsibility of the councilors to partner in this kind of development and that this project would be important to the City. Councilor Clark acknowledged that the City would forego tax revenue on the improvements to the property for ten years but he wanted to underscore that for the useful life of the building which would extend far beyond the ten years, the City would collect substantially more in revenue than the existing tax revenue. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting