Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

better housing to be built in the University area for students and the City wanted students to live in the University area. She said helping these three local developers would benefit the City. Councilor Clark called it a wise long-term investment in the livability and financial health of the community. He opined that to define it any other way was wrong. He remarked that the City routinely did a six-year financial forecast and the most recent one did not look very good. He said if they looked at a 20-year forecast the picture was even “bleaker.” He acknowledged that the City would forego some tax income on the improvements for ten years, but he underscored that at the end of that period the City received “multiple returns” over the 40- or 50-year lifetime of the building which would add to the financial stability of the community. Mayor Piercy felt the tools should be used sparingly and to achieve what they wanted to achieve in the community. She underscored that the people proposing the projects had worked with the neighbors and garnered neighborhood support for them. She agreed that the University area would still be a focus for construction projects but she did not think they would be built with the high quality or livability that was desired for the community without the MUPTE. She was willing to support this tool to achieve those ends for the community. Councilor Bettman declared that the tax issue was important to the public. She noted that up for council consideration was a possible measure to place on the ballot to put $81 million into fixing the roads. She opined that granting the tax exemption was akin to saying that everyone else would pay for those roads, but for ten years these projects would not have to. She asserted that in a situation in which the City was asking for higher fees, higher rates, and higher taxes because it could not pay for services, “making a prettier façade to a building should not qualify as a justification to not pay taxes.” Councilor Pryor remarked that when talking about the degree to which the City wanted to participate with other partners on tax revenues, MUPTE was one incentive but there were others such as downtown redevelopment and enterprise zones. He underscored that there were a variety of different ways that cities provide financial incentives. He averred that in this case the MUPTE was as reasonable as another incentive in terms of what the community would get out of it. He said the MUPTE projects were attractive to the neighborhood because they were able to put in additional amenities and parking and other things they could not do without such an incentive. He felt this was why the neighborhoods were supportive of the projects; they knew that they would get a nicer building that worked better in the long-term. He was supportive of the City participating as a tax incentive partner to help that happen. Councilor Poling said to characterize the developments that were going in as adding a pretty façade to the neighborhood was a “slap in the face” to the developer and an “injustice.” He underscored that the applicants were local people who had gone to the area neighborhood associations and gotten their approval. He pointed out that one of the applicants had been born and raised within walking distance of where he wanted to put in a small “redeveloped good-looking” housing project. He stated that the applicants would continue to pay taxes and the tax incentive was an investment in the future. Councilor Zelenka clarified that he was not characterizing the developers in any way. For him it was a matter of what the role of government should be and how it should use tax incentives and tax dollars. Councilor Taylor declared that the council did not know whether or not these projects would be built without tax incentives. She also asserted that they did not know how many people were present at the neighborhood meetings at which the applicants had garnered neighborhood approval. She opined that the City wanted people to build good things but that should not mean they did not have to pay taxes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 11 Regular Meeting