Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Solomon believed the program was a powerful one and recalled that when the MUPTE was revised the <br />City had added local standards. She pointed out the City had control over the process. The developer could <br />chose from a variety of amenities to get them through the door. She did not think the City was a victim in <br />this case. Speaking to the issue of taxes, Ms. Solomon asked the viewing audience to understand that <br />MUPTE applicants still paid taxes; they did not pay taxes on the increase in the value of the property for ten <br />years. She recalled that staff had produced a chart illustrating what the properties receiving the MUPTE <br />paid before the exemption and after the exemption, and said that information would be good to have again. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor recalled the council’s work session on downtown development and the information it received <br />about the fact that partnerships between developers and government produced a better product or outcome; <br />that might be better for the developer but it was also better for the community and those who would be living <br />in the facility. He said his perspective was that the MUPTE was one of the “tools in the tool belt” that <br />allowed developers to build better proposals. Mr. Weinman concurred with Mr. Pryor’s assessment. Mr. <br />Pryor thought the MUPTE was a demonstration of how partnerships produce better outcomes for the <br />community as a whole. He suggested that if similar developments were not happening in other parts of <br />town, perhaps the tool could be extended to those areas. He suggested the City could create “little MUPTE- <br />ettes.” <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy thought the City was still trying to provide incentives to construction in the urban core but <br />some considered the boundaries broader than others. She recalled that at one time the council had discussed <br />the goal of more housing for students, and said if that was no longer needed, the question was whether to <br />shrink the zone and the boundaries. While it could be applied somewhere else, perhaps the tool would have <br />done its job in the area in question. Mr. Weinman said in his opinion, it was more expensive to do infill <br />development. The City might get some inexpensive construction similar to that already done in past years in <br />the West University Neighborhood. He pointed out the council changed the guidelines in 2004 to encourage <br />higher quality development, and the applications that had been received since that time were of higher <br />quality development than other projects built in the West University Neighborhood. Infill development often <br />did not occur in general because the investment did not pencil out. Mayor Piercy asked about making <br />MUPTE available everywhere to “incent” desirable infill. Mr. Weinman said that the City could do that in <br />areas zoned for medium- or high-density development. The boundary was selected at one time because it <br />was downtown and zoned for medium- and high-density development, where the City had a goal for more <br />housing, and included adjacent higher density zoned areas. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy noted the list of qualities the City was trying to encourage, and asked Mr. Weinman if there <br />were things that he thought were missing in terms of what the City was trying to achieve. Mr. Weinman <br />suggested that was a council policy discussion. Mayor Piercy thought staff could suggest ideas to the <br />council. Mr. Weinman recalled considerable council discussion in 2004, when some councilors wanted the <br />quality standards to be stricter and more objective in nature. The council at that time decided to list the <br />standards, ask developers to respond to them, and then decide whether the application met the test on a case- <br />by-case basis. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman recalled the discussion mentioned by Mr. Weinman and said the public benefits mentioned <br />included no benchmarks or weighting, and the council eliminated the weighting for low-income. She further <br />pointed out that the definition of low-income before the council was higher than the definition of affordable <br />housing as defined by the State. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she supported the application of the MUPTE in the urban core and to the places it was <br />extended in 2004 because she acknowledged there was an economic disadvantage to building housing in the <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />