CC Minutes - 11/10/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman said she had received a call from a homeowner in the boundary expansion area who said the proposal amounted to giving a property tax holiday to new apartment development in the neighborhood and who could not see why she should pay property taxes when someone who built a "rat trap" for students to rent got ten years tax-free on their development. Ms. Bettman said she was not convinced that subsidizing what would be more student housing was the way to achieve the goal of increasing long-term housing in the neighborhood. She said she could not imagine ownership condominiums being developed in an area where they would be surrounded by a transient student population and all of the accompanying downsides, such as noise and partying. She added that a develop- ment in 1996 had changed a lot from medium-density to high-density at the request of the developer and against the wishes of the neighborhood, and the City forfeited approximately $250,000 in tax revenue. She did not see that the development had a positive impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Poling said that he was in favor of the proposed boundary in Attachment A. He said that a new housing incentive would encourage compact urban growth and infilling. He reminded the council that the property itself continued to be taxed; only the improvements were affected by the ten-year tax exemption. He commended the task force's recommendations and agreed with Mr. Kelly's request for quality standards, although cautioned the standards should not be too specific. Ms. Nathanson commented that the West University neighborhood was only one part of the expansion. She said that new student housing could actually be replacing housing considered to be "rat traps," but there was currently little incentive to replace severely deteriorated, unattractive, or unsafe housing. She said her objective was to encourage redevelopment so that unsightly developments were replaced with something that was better quality in the long term. She suggested that there should be housing available for faculty and staff closer to their place of employment and that would encourage longer term residency and increase the mix of types of residents in the West University neighborhood. Ms. Nathanson said she concurred with staff recommendations and found them reasonable. She asked if the term "quality" referred to the quality of the building, the building design, building materials, site design, structure, or site amenities. She suggested that those issues could be addressed in a preface to instructions for the MUPTE worksheet that advised applicants that those features would be reviewed and might influence the council's decision on whether the exemption was granted, rather than made requirements. Mayor Torrey acknowledged the challenges inherent in trying to avoid interfering with neighborhoods while encouraging infill. He said he supported the staff recommendation and was willing to consider quality standards, but hoped the MUPTE boundary expansion would move forward to encourage housing development in the core of the city. Ms. Bettman agreed with the mayor's comments regarding support for housing in the core of the city. She said that the tax break was available in the core and she supported it north of the 3rd4th Connector, north of Franklin Boulevard, and east of High Street. She said she could support it in other areas with some caveats. She gave as an example a developer who removed an old house with four rental units and then applied for the MUPTE. She explained that the City was already receiving tax revenue from the existing building, so not only would the new development's taxes be forgiven for ten years, but the existing revenue would be foregone. She asked if a threshold could be created to identify the assessment of the property with the improvement and establish an increment. Mr. Weinman said that MUPTE was established in State law and MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 4 Work Session