Laserfiche WebLink
? <br /> revenue lost on removed improvement in year one and estimated 10-year total <br />? <br /> total tax paid on land during MUPTE exemption <br />? <br /> average tax paid annually during MUPTE <br />? <br /> current annual tax paid on land and improvements <br /> <br />Mr. Clark averred that a substantive amount of tax revenues now coming into the City would not <br />be coming in without MUPTE. The net effect was a much greater amount of money coming to <br />the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling thanked Ms. Ortiz for raising the issue of expanding the boundaries, which previous <br />councilors had not been willing to do. He supported extending the boundary to the north and <br />west, and supported sending it to a public hearing. He was dismayed by the comment that by <br />granting a MUPTE, the council increased other peoples’ taxes. It was wrong and misleading, and <br />not what occurred. The public benefit had been discussed numerous times in the past. He was <br />opposed to reducing the current MUPTE area and removing the WUN. <br /> <br />Reading from a table in the AIS, Ms. Solomon said Hilyard House paid $3,357 annually in <br />property taxes when the property was removed from the tax rolls in 1996, and now paid $31,320 <br />annually in property taxes. This had been a huge benefit to the City. During the same ten-year <br />exemption period, the revenue lost was $23,704. She would not support the amendment because <br />she did not support limiting the purpose of the public hearing to presume that the WUN was out <br />and the only focus of the discussion was the Downtown Plan boundary and the extension. She did <br />not want to limit public discussion on the issue. Related to the public benefit, she agreed with Mr. <br />Poling, that this had been discussed in the past. There were already standards in place that should <br />be adhered to. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka theorized that reducing the boundary was due to the fact that development was <br />happening in WUN, iterating that 70 percent of the units built there during the last three years had <br />not used MUPTE. The area would continue to be redeveloped based on student demand and <br />market conditions. Tax dollars were being given away for something that was going to happen <br />anyway. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy said she was struggling with the concept of using tax incentives to get certain <br />outcomes, but not offering these incentives when the council felt they might not be needed. She <br />thought payback over time was beneficial and thought the benefit could be realized now with the <br />use of MUPTE. She was willing to reduce the area and see if it continued to move forward, move <br />it into a different area, and keep the downtown area. If unintended or unanticipated results <br />occurred, they could be addressed in the future. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said MUPTE was not just a tax giveaway from the City’s General Fund, but also <br />impacted Lane County and the school districts. When properties came back on the tax rolls, the <br />lost revenues were not made up. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked how difficult it would be to reinstate MUPTE boundaries if they were reduced. <br /> <br />Mr. Weinman responded that a City Council ordinance would be required to reinstate MUPTE <br />boundaries. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />