CC Minutes - 01/22/07 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regarding Item F, Councilor Zelenka, asked if it would be possible to have just one body instead of having both a Citizen Review Board and a Police Commission. City Manager Taylor responded that the City Council had created the Police Commission. He noted that the issue had been raised regarding whether two bodies were necessary but he had not received any council direction at this point. Councilor Zelenka commented that having both seemed redundant to him. Councilor Ortiz averred that they were two different kinds of bodies that functioned as different mechanisms within the local government. Mayor Piercy suggested that staff could provide information regarding the functions of the two bodies. Councilor Zelenka understood the difference between the two. He said he thought one body could serve the two purposes. Councilor Bettman pointed out that Councilor Zelenka could request a work session on the issue. She asserted that even the Police Commission questioned its future objectives especially since the Chief was pursuing Lexipol policies that were “basically off-the-shelf policies from a national organization.” She said because the main function of the Police Commission was to review policy, Councilor Zelenka’s question was legitimate. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to appoint John Charles Hare to the Police Commission. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Regarding Item G, Councilor Taylor reiterated her objection to allowing anyone a tax exemption. She felt it allowed unfair competition. She asserted that the project that was seeking the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) was close the University neighborhood and not in the downtown core neighborhood for which the MUPTE was adopted as an incentive. Councilor Bettman averred that when the City Council had adopted the MUPTE ordinance, it had been reassured that the council would have the opportunity to weigh in on each application. She acknowledged that “before [development] penciled out for the developer” there needed to be a critical mass of housing. She was willing to support the MUPTE for the downtown area until that critical mass was achieved. She asserted that the project was creating housing within walking distance of the University. She declared it “basically student housing.” She found it difficult to believe the project would not “pencil out” given the demand for student housing that she perceived to be there. She alleged that every development created demand for City and County services that they were exempted from paying for in the first 10 years. Mayor Piercy asked for an explanation as to why the City was offering the exemption to this property, given that it was not in the downtown area. PDD Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman stated that the exemption was designed to increase housing in the core area. He underscored that the City Council had identified a boundary area for the MUPTE zone and the development in question was located within the boundary. He noted that the council included the area because the housing in it was deteriorating and having it replaced with better housing was a positive development in the long run. He stressed that the developer had to prove that the development would not be built without the MUPTE and the developer had done so. He added that the council also required certain quality standards and these were being met as well. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting