Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

when the lot had been excavated or there was debris. He said a memorandum would present the issue to the council to determine whether it was appropriate to the downtown code revision process or a separate process. Roll call vote; Consent Calendar Item C, initiation of code amendment for Down- town Zoning District as amended, passed, 6:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposi- tion. Regarding Item D, Councilor Papé indicated he was in support but questioned the date of January 1, 2012, instead of an earlier date. Urban Services Manager Richie Manager explained that the date was consistent with State statutes but he understood development would actually begin immediately. He said the council could change the timeline. Councilor Papé, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the project completion date from January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2009. Councilor Bettman stated that the amendment would help avoid the problem of demolishing an existing structure and leaving the site vacant. Councilor Kelly supported the shorter timeline, but noted that in another instance where a project timeline was shortened construction delays required an extension. He said the developer for this project could do the same. Roll call vote; the motion to amend the project timeline passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Taylor stated she would be voting against the tax exemption as she saw no clear benefit to the City and the project was located in an area that would be developed as multi-family housing eventually because of its proximity to the University. Councilor Bettman stated she would vote no as she objected to the use of a public subsidy, forgiveness of tax liability, to build a profitable development. She said there was no reason to forego tax collection on property that was profitable, especially since that money was then not available for public safety and schools. She could see using MUPTE in situations where it was necessary to level the playing field or a public subsidy was needed in order for development that met multiple City objectives to happen; in this case multi-family housing would be built anyway and there was no justification for a public subsidy. She was also concerned about subsidizing the demolition of vintage houses. She stated that the loss of Westmoreland student housing would create an even larger market for student housing and strongly believed the City should not be publicly subsidizing this type of project. Councilor Solomon clarified that the owners would still pay tax on the land; the exemption was for a ten- year period and only for improvements to the property. Roll call vote; Consent Calendar Item D, adoption of Resolution 4885 approving a th multiple-unit property tax exemption for property located at 673 East 14 Alley Way as amended passed, 5:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. Referring to Item E, Councilor Bettman asked if the projects located outside of the urban growth boundary in Eugene and Springfield were being built in order to provide capacity for future growth. Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter replied that he understood the projects were a combination of accommodating planned MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting