Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Ortiz wanted separate motions for the extension of MUPTE, retraction of the university area, <br />and the criteria for the standards. She wanted to hear what the community had to say about <br />standards. Additionally, she invited other councilors to tour her ward and neighborhood at <br />anytime to see the challenges in her community. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark clarified his previous comments regarding the map and EWEB properties. He had <br />misread the map and his comments were based upon that misreading. He was troubled by the <br />continued discussion that somehow everybody else bore the cost of implementing MUPTE which <br />he considered nonsensical. <br /> <br />Responding to questions from Mr. Clark, Mr. Weinman said eleven of eighteen properties that <br />had come off the tax rolls had been returned. Mr. Weinman said the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) <br />included a table of the last four properties that had come back onto the tax rolls that illustrated: <br />? <br /> annual property tax prior to MUPTE <br />? <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 /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />