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

Home Browse Search

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. Councilor Bettman declared that it was not a question of whether the council supported student housing, it was a question of geography. She reiterated her willingness to provide MUPTE for student housing if it was located downtown. Councilor Bettman recalled that there used to be a standard that gave “extra points” on the application if the development included low-income housing but it had been taken out of the program. She reiterated her feeling that just because the development was within the boundary of the tax break did not mean the council should grant it injudiciously. She said one thing that concerned her about the applications was that there was no independent audit to determine if the developer really could not build the project without a MUPTE. She asked if there was a standard of what the building should cost per unit and whether or not the numbers were defensible in comparison with other projects. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Zelenka, Bettman, and Taylor voting in opposition. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Municipal Court Sentencing Authority for Violations of Chapter 4 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Acting Assistant City Manager Luell introduced Judge Wayne Allen. Judge Allen reminded the council that he had been before it on September 10 and received direction to clarify the intent of some of the language. He said the reference to the court’s ability to suspend the sentence had been stricken as the court already had that ability. He stated that the reason there was a suspended sentence portion in the language was to give the council some level of reassurance that the court would look at a person’s financial ability when ordering treatment. Judge Allen explained that the court may suspend a sentence for a person who had a financial challenge to comply with the treatment or education. He also stated that the court wanted to have the authority to order treatment or education. He related that with the increasing number of violations it seemed inappropriate to only have the ability to impose a fine, specifically for minors in possession of alcohol. He related that he saw an increasingly younger population driving under the influence and, earlier in the day, he had seen 10 cases of people driving under the influence of intoxicants in his courtroom, eight of whom were under the age of 22. Judge Allen commented that this was “not how it used to be.” He believed that some kind of education would be helpful. Councilor Bettman thanked staff for the clarification of the language. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting