Item 4A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark said that someone suggested to him that in the absence of the MUPTE, the five- and six-bedroom units would continue to predominate and the result would be student housing with parking crammed along the street. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Weinman said he would characterize Mr. Clark’s remarks as accurate. Ms. Ortiz thought the idea of encouraging growth in certain areas was ‘okay’ with her. She agreed that some of the units might not be as nice in the absence of the MUPTE. However, her challenge was that she did not see much building going on in her neighborhood or other areas not covered by the MUPTE. The infill that had occurred in her area was not attractive. She looked forward to seeing Ms. Bettman’s recommendations because she thought the City was “bringing coals to Newcastle” with the MUPTE. It was not as though the properties were not valuable or would not be developed; the question was how much input into the quality and design the City would have. Ms. Taylor asked the original purpose of the exemption. Mr. Weinman said it was to encourage housing in the core area and support a compact urban growth form and encourage redevelopment in the core. Ms. Taylor said it was supposed to be a benefit for the city, not the developers. Mr. Weinman agreed. He reiterated it was to encourage development in the core. Ms. Taylor believed that when the City changed the boundaries of the exemption area it had changed the purpose of the program. If someone wanted to build something good, they did not have to pay taxes for ten years whether it benefited the City or not, during which time the value of the property decreased before the property owners paid taxes. It did not seem fair to her, and it did not seem to benefit the City but rather developers Mr. Weinman said the current area was slightly smaller than the area established in 1986. The boundaries were last changed in 2004. Ms. Solomon believed the program was a powerful one and recalled that when the MUPTE was revised the City had added local standards. She pointed out the City had control over the process. The developer could chose from a variety of amenities to get them through the door. She did not think the City was a victim in this case. Speaking to the issue of taxes, Ms. Solomon asked the viewing audience to understand that MUPTE applicants still paid taxes; they did not pay taxes on the increase in the value of the property for ten years. She recalled that staff had produced a chart illustrating what the properties receiving the MUPTE paid before the exemption and after the exemption, and said that information would be good to have again. Mr. Pryor recalled the council’s work session on downtown development and the information it received about the fact that partnerships between developers and government produced a better product or outcome; that might be better for the developer but it was also better for the community and those who would be living in the facility. He said his perspective was that the MUPTE was one of the “tools in the tool belt” that allowed developers to build better proposals. Mr. Weinman concurred with Mr. Pryor’s assessment. Mr. Pryor thought the MUPTE was a demonstration of how partnerships produce better outcomes for the community as a whole. He suggested that if similar developments were not happening in other parts of town, perhaps the tool could be extended to those areas. He suggested the City could create “little MUPTE- ettes.” Mayor Piercy thought the City was still trying to provide incentives to construction in the urban core but some considered the boundaries broader than others. She recalled that at one time the council had discussed the goal of more housing for students, and said if that was no longer needed, the question was whether to shrink the zone and the boundaries. While it could be applied somewhere else, perhaps the tool would have MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 8 Work Session