CC Minutes - 10/08/07 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting