Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

yield a greater benefit to the City in the end. It was not unreasonable to partner with them through this program. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to conduct a public hearing on an amendment to the MUPTE ordinance to incorporate the changes identified in attachments A and C-3. th Mr. Zelenka stated the developer of the 19 Avenue and Alder Street project had modified the project from seven to four stories, and was providing one parking space per unit, which was more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. He understood that the Portland metropolitan area used a program similar to MUPTE for transit routes, which would be similar to what would occur in Eugene if the proposed LTD EmX route was built in west Eugene. He asserted MUPTE was not about partnering but about adding incentive to create something that would not otherwise occur. In the WUN, what was occurring had occurred and would continue to do so without the incentives. In tough budget times, the City could not afford providing incentives where they were not needed. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the boundary to not include the West University Neighborhood for the public hearing. Ms. Bettman sought clarification of Mr. Zelenka’s amendment. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the boundary to not include the West University Neighborhood for the public hearing, and to include the downtown area plus Sixth Avenue and Seventh Ave- nue, Highway 99, and Trainsong. Mr. Lidz explained the relationship of the two maps previously offered by Ms. Bettman to the main motion. Ms. Bettman said she was referring to the blue map. Mr. Pryor declined to accept Mr. Zelenka’s amendment as a friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said she would support the amendment because exempting taxes for ten years in the university area shifted the tax burden to other City taxpayers. Ms. Ortiz wanted separate motions for the extension of MUPTE, retraction of the university area, and the criteria for the standards. She wanted to hear what the community had to say about standards. Additionally, she invited other councilors to tour her ward and neighborhood at anytime to see the challenges in her community. Mr. Clark clarified his previous comments regarding the map and EWEB properties. He had misread the map and his comments were based upon that misreading. He was troubled by the continued discussion that somehow everybody else bore the cost of implementing MUPTE which he considered nonsensical. Responding to questions from Mr. Clark, Mr. Weinman said eleven of eighteen properties that had come off the tax rolls had been returned. Mr. Weinman said the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) included a table of the last four properties that had come back onto the tax rolls that illustrated: ? annual property tax prior to MUPTE MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 8 Work Session