Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Councilor Bettman asked if the matter could be approached through some type of taxing of undeveloped <br />property as if it were developed after a certain period of time. Ms. Laurence said she would research how <br />other communities had addressed the problem and report back to the council. City Manager Taylor <br />affirmed that staff would research tools to influence the condition and duration of vacant lots, particularly <br />when the lot had been excavated or there was debris. He said a memorandum would present the issue to <br />the council to determine whether it was appropriate to the downtown code revision process or a separate <br />process. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; Consent Calendar Item C, initiation of code amendment for Down- <br />town Zoning District as amended, passed, 6:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposi- <br />tion. <br /> <br />Regarding Item D, Councilor Papé indicated he was in support but questioned the date of January 1, 2012, <br />instead of an earlier date. Urban Services Manager Richie Manager explained that the date was consistent <br />with State statutes but he understood development would actually begin immediately. He said the council <br />could change the timeline. <br /> <br />Councilor Papé, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the project <br />completion date from January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2009. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman stated that the amendment would help avoid the problem of demolishing an existing <br />structure and leaving the site vacant. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly supported the shorter timeline, but noted that in another instance where a project timeline <br />was shortened construction delays required an extension. He said the developer for this project could do <br />the same. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; the motion to amend the project timeline passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor stated she would be voting against the tax exemption as she saw no clear benefit to the <br />City and the project was located in an area that would be developed as multi-family housing eventually <br />because of its proximity to the University. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman stated she would vote no as she objected to the use of a public subsidy, forgiveness of <br />tax liability, to build a profitable development. She said there was no reason to forego tax collection on <br />property that was profitable, especially since that money was then not available for public safety and <br />schools. She could see using MUPTE in situations where it was necessary to level the playing field or a <br />public subsidy was needed in order for development that met multiple City objectives to happen; in this <br />case multi-family housing would be built anyway and there was no justification for a public subsidy. She <br />was also concerned about subsidizing the demolition of vintage houses. She stated that the loss of <br />Westmoreland student housing would create an even larger market for student housing and strongly <br />believed the City should not be publicly subsidizing this type of project. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon clarified that the owners would still pay tax on the land; the exemption was for a ten- <br />year period and only for improvements to the property. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 5 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />