Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to substitute a motion to adopt <br />the resolution, included in the agenda packet in Attachment F on page 398, denying a Mul- <br />th <br />tiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for residential property located at 693 East 16 Avenue, <br />Eugene, Oregon (Corey Development, LLC). <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor observed that they had been talking about a philosophical view of the MUPTE rather than <br />the merits of the project. He had not heard that the project did not qualify for a MUPTE. He believed using <br />a MUPTE had merit where a building would not be built without it. He noted that the second project, which <br />he believed would be a very appropriate use of the exemption, would not be built as presented without the <br />MUPTE. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon indicated she would support both MUPTE applications. She felt they were both <br />excellent projects in needed areas and would provide the University area with a better housing stock than <br />currently existed. She underscored that the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) for the first project had indicated <br />the land would still be taxed for ten years and then after 10 years an estimated $9,069 would be paid on the <br />improvements annually. She concluded that the lost revenue from the property would be made up 3.3 years <br />after the exemption ended. She likened passing on this benefit to “cutting off our nose to spite our face.” <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy said it bothered her that they were considering these MUPTE applications prior to holding the <br />work session on the exemption. She felt that people were told that it was possible to get the exemption in the <br />University area and they would go through the process to obtain one. She thought this was an unfair <br />situation for people who were “playing by the rules.” <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman objected to Mayor Piercy’s characterization. She emphasized that the council had <br />discretion to make a decision to grant or deny the exemption. She disagreed that this was a philosophical <br />issue, declaring it to be a policy issue. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka called the projects good, adding that he hoped they would be built. He repeated that <br />projects had been built in the University area without the MUPTE. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor reiterated that the MUPTE had never been guaranteed to be granted. <br /> <br />Councilor Ortiz underscored that for her this was about finances. She stated that $30,000 would pay for a <br />.5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) police officer or support person. She needed to see more of a public benefit <br />from such tax exemptions. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark pointed out that either way the City would receive more tax money in the long-term. He <br />said if the MUPTE was granted there would be a gain after ten years for the life-time of the building. He <br />stated that this was not the discussion however. He averred that now that the council opposed granting the <br />MUPTE the discussion would change to what sort of building would be built there. He said without the <br />MUPTE the developer was free to do all of the things within the code that were possible, which included <br />very little parking and the possibility of six-bedroom units in a very tall building. He underscored that this <br />would also increase the money into the tax coffers, but it would also increase the long-term negative impact <br />to the neighborhood from the kind of building the City was encouraging people to build. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked if rentals would not depreciate on the tax rolls. Richie Weinman, Urban Services <br />Manager for the Community Development Division, responded that once properties were on the tax rolls <br />they tended to go up by three percent or more annually. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 18 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />