Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

reiterated that the Rental Housing Program, started in 2006, had arisen because of problems associated with rundown housing predominantly located near campus which “costs $300,000 every year.” He preferred to partner with people who would create new housing that was of a better and higher quality so that the City would retain a higher quality of students at the University and to help build generally better lower-income housing. Councilor Clark said he had heard anecdotally that the market was such that housing was very profitable in the University area and would be built anyway. He had not, however, heard any data to substantiate this. He hoped that for the work session on the MUPTE some research data could be provided to the council for consideration. He understood that the University had conducted this type of housing research and would likely share the resulting data with the City. Councilor Poling pointed out that despite the fact that the project was described as student housing by some, it was located next to Sacred Heart Hospital, commercial areas, and the EmX route. He also noted that the developer planned to build three-bedroom units - units that were more suitable for families. He did not agree that the project was intended specifically for University housing. Councilor Bettman declared that the project was student housing. She asserted that families had been “fleeing” the area “for ages.” She averred that the area was noisy and the population there was transient. She reiterated her opposition to the tax exemption. She said the City would be foregoing taxes it needed for the budget. Councilor Zelenka recounted his personal survey of the University area, in which he perceived that developments were being built in the area regardless of whether they received a tax exemption or not. He questioned how one could know if a development could be built without a MUPTE. He said the answer was difficult to determine because they did not have the metrics. He suggested that the council consider having some standards to ensure that they were getting the kind of development they wanted given that the tax exemption was tantamount to “giving them an enormous amount of money.” He added that it would not “break [his] heart” to see Mr. Newland’s project go forward. Councilor Zelenka asked staff to bring information to the work session on how the council could tell if the market was creating the conditions, the history of the MUPTE program in that neighborhood, how many developments had occurred, and how many of them had been given the exemption. He asked how the council’s denial or approval of a MUPTE affected the nature of development in the area. He also wanted to know what the City could legally require of developers in order to be granted a MUPTE, such as the inclusion of building elements that were sustainable. Mayor Piercy commented that if it was “more of a blah blah blah project” she would be inclined to put off approval. She stated that the larger discussion would be whether or not the council wanted to support the development of more student housing. And, if the council did want to support it, would there be qualitative standards for the development? She said it sounded like the council was still operating under its overarching values, which included encouraging the construction of housing in the University area as well as other areas. But if this was not the case, she thought the council should acknowledge it and change its policies governing the MUPTE. Councilor Taylor remarked that the project sounded great to her. She asked if the council was going to grant all people who were building “something that is nice” a tax exemption. She said the City could not run without taxes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting