CC Minutes - 05/27/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

whole, and not the builder. The council could contribute to homelessness by encouraging people through incentives to build multi-family housing. We would no longer have run-down single room occupancy (SRO) development, the kinds of places that were not the best, but affordable, and better than being on the streets. She definitely wanted to get rid of the university area tax exemption, and wanted to take more time to think about the extension. Responding to Ms. Solomon, Mr. Weinman said MUPTE could be used for rehabilitation if it was an extensive rehabilitation project that created five or more units. Ms. Solomon said, in addition to previously cited reasons, while looking at the applications previously approved, it appeared that 95 percent of the applicants were local people investing back in the community, which was important to her. She noted local bankers, realtors and contractors were part of this investment pool, living in the community, wanting to make a difference and invest in the community, and 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 8 Work Session