Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

was no longer necessary for the West University Neighborhood to remain within the MUPTE boundaries since it was such a highly desired location for University housing. Mr. Zelenka commented that there was no direct proof that MUPTE exemptions encouraged better development within the programs boundaries. Mr. Zelenka asked that the proposed language of the ordinance revision 2.945(8) be amended in order to preserve the council’s authority to overrule an application’s satisfaction of the MUPTE approval criteria. City Attorney Glen Klein noted that he had already made a note regarding that subsection and that the language in question would be revised in accordance with Mr. Zelenka’s concerns. Mr. Zelenka commented that the 100 point score necessary for MUPTE approval according to the proposed criteria seemed considerably low, noting that six of the nine proposed categories alone could garner the 100 points necessary for MUPTE approval. Mr. Weinman noted that staff had attempted to test the proposed MUPTE criteria against existing and proposed projects, and further noted that the scoring system could indeed be adjusted if the criteria did not prove to be stringent enough in its execution. Ms. Piercy commented that she had wrestled with the issues regarding the MUPTE for quite some time, and felt that the MUPTE was essential to the continued growth of the neighborhoods within its urban boundaries. Ms. Piercy agreed with Mr. Pryor that the MUPTE approval criteria points system should be used only as a guideline for the council and that it should retain its authority to make the final decisions regarding MUPTE applications. Ms. Piercy commented that it would be very important for the council to consider how the character of each neighborhood within the MUPTE boundaries would be affected by proposed developments. Ms. Bettman said tax exemptions such as the MUPTE should be used judiciously and as incentives to responsible property development rather than simply as a giveaway. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct the City Manager to schedule action on Options C, D and F as listed on the agenda item summary which expands the boundary to include the Trainsong Neighborhood, revises the selection criteria, and eliminates the West University Neighborhood. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to substitute for Options C and F. Mr. Clark responded to Ms. Bettman’s previous comment by saying that it could not be considered a giveaway when the City was attempting to create jobs and foster similar economic growth by employing the MUPTE. He further stated that without the MUPTE in place there was little guarantee that properties would ever be developed or improved in the areas such as the West University Neighborhood. Ms. Taylor indicated she would not be supporting Mr. Clark’s motion, and further stated her belief that incentives such as the MUPTE often encouraged developers to tear down historic and non-tax exempt buildings in order to get a tax break by building something else. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Clark’s previously stated motion to substitute Options C and F. The motion passed, 5:3, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Solomon in favor. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on the motion that had been substituted with Options C and F in accordance with the previously passed motion. The motion passed, 5:3, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Solomon in favor. MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 8 Work Session