Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Bettman supported the denial. She reiterated her belief that the MUPTE took money out of the tax rolls. She stressed that each MUPTE came before the council and the council was not bound to approve them. Councilor Taylor concurred. She said the council was never obligated to grant the exemption. She averred that a MUPTE should only be granted if there was a definite advantage to the City. In response to a question from Councilor Poling, Mr. Klein explained that a substitute motion to approve the MUPTE was contained in Attachment A. He underscored that the council could only adopt a motion to deny or a motion to approve in this case. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to substitute the resolution ap- proving a multiple-unit property tax exemption for residential property located at 693 East th 16 Avenue as written, per Attachment A on page 263 of the City Council agenda packet. Councilor Pryor commented that he was conscious of the City’s and the County’s budget situations, but he did not want to say that the procedure would only apply until the City needed money. He stressed that the council had put a procedure in place that said if the requirements were fulfilled an applicant would qualify for a MUPTE. He likened it to the Enterprise Zone and wondered why the council should not grant the MUPTE. One of the reasons he had heard was that projects would be built anyway. He said this could be true, but for him a non-persuasive reason was that the MUPTE should not be granted because the City needed the money. He averred that this was not part of the procedure; it was based on whether the project would benefit the community and whether the tax benefit would produce a better project. He agreed that the project could potentially be built without the tax exemption but he believed it would not be as nice a project and would not have as many of the things the City was seeking in terms of redevelopment and community improvement. Councilor Zelenka said the purpose of the MUPTE was to create an incentive in an area needing it for development. He did not think the University neighborhood needed this incentive anymore and projects would be built anyway. He thought incentives were appropriate only for development in the downtown area. He echoed Councilor Bettmans’s concern about the “budget picture” for the City, the County, and the school districts. He declared that the total of the three MUPTE exemptions was $240,000 over a ten-year period. He supported denial of all three of the MUPTE applications before the council. Councilor Bettman did not agree that denial of the MUPTE was a change in the rules. She reiterated that the rules were that a threshold should be met and then it was up to the discretion of the council. She believed the projects would be built without an exemption. Councilor Taylor emphasized her belief that the council did not need a reason to deny the tax exemptions. She averred that they needed a compelling reason to grant the exemptions and there was no compelling reason to do so in this case. Councilor Solomon opined that the “tired, old, rundown housing” on these sites was a compelling reason to grant the MUPTE applications. She said Councilor Zelenka only told “half of the story” of what the City would forego over ten years, as the exemption was only on the improvements made to the property. She stressed that the owner would pay property taxes on the land but would be exempted from paying on the improvements for ten years; at the end of ten years the owner paid taxes on the improved property and the City would soon regain the revenue it did not receive. She also pointed out that the MUPTE would enable MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 10 Regular Meeting