Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

th tiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for residential property located at 693 East 16 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (Corey Development, LLC). Councilor Pryor observed that they had been talking about a philosophical view of the MUPTE rather than the merits of the project. He had not heard that the project did not qualify for a MUPTE. He believed using a MUPTE had merit where a building would not be built without it. He noted that the second project, which he believed would be a very appropriate use of the exemption, would not be built as presented without the MUPTE. Councilor Solomon indicated she would support both MUPTE applications. She felt they were both excellent projects in needed areas and would provide the University area with better housing stock than currently existed. She underscored that the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) for the first project had indicated the land would still be taxed for ten years and then after ten years an estimated $9,069 would be paid on the improvements annually. She concluded that the lost revenue from the property would be made up 3.3 years after the exemption ended. She likened passing on this benefit to “cutting off our nose to spite our face.” Mayor Piercy said it bothered her that they were considering these MUPTE applications prior to holding the work session on the exemption. She felt that people were told that it was possible to get the exemption in the University area and they would go through the process to obtain one. She thought this was an unfair situation for people who were “playing by the rules.” Councilor Bettman objected to Mayor Piercy’s characterization. She emphasized that the council had discretion to make a decision to grant or deny the exemption. She disagreed that this was a philosophical issue, declaring it to be a policy issue. Councilor Zelenka called the projects good, adding that he hoped they would be built. He repeated that projects had been built in the University area without the MUPTE. Councilor Taylor reiterated that the MUPTE had not been guaranteed. Councilor Ortiz underscored that for her this was about finances. She stated that $30,000 would pay for a .5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) police officer or support person. She needed to see a public benefit from such tax exemptions. Councilor Clark pointed out that either way the City would receive more tax money in the long-term. He said if the MUPTE was granted there would be a gain after ten years for the lifetime of the building. He stated that this, however, was not the discussion. He averred that now that the council opposed granting the MUPTE the discussion would change to what sort of building would be built there. He said without the MUPTE the developer was free to do all of the things within the code that were possible, which included very little parking and the possibility of six-bedroom units in a very tall building. He underscored that this too would increase taxes, but it would also increase the long-term negative impact to the neighborhood by the kind of building the City was encouraging people to build. Councilor Bettman asked if rentals depreciated on the tax rolls. Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Community Development Division, responded that once properties were on the tax rolls they tended to go up by three percent or more annually. Roll call vote; the motion to substitute the resolution passed, 4:3; councilors Clark, Pryor, and Solomon voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 14 Regular Meeting