Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Ruiz reminded Mr. Zelenka that no kind of trigger mechanism with which the project could be terminated was <br />currently being incorporated into the purchase and sale agreement. Mr. Zelenka indicated he understood Mr. Ruiz’s <br />statement. <br />Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the work session meeting of the <br />City Council at 12:55 p.m. <br /> <br />B. WORK SESSION: <br />An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) and Amending <br />Sections 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 <br /> <br />Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman presented an overview of the central tenets and history of the MUPTE <br />program for the benefit of the council as well as an overview of the proposed amendments. A copy of Mr. <br />Weinman’s presentation was submitted to the council with their agenda materials. <br />Ms. Taylor was opposed to expanding the boundaries of the MUPTE program as indicated in Mr. Weinman’s <br />presentation and believed the boundaries should be back to their original designations. She indicated that the most <br />favorable option being presented was the proposed amendment to reduce the MUPTE boundary to the Downtown <br />Plan Area, further stating her position that the Riverfront area should not be included in the revised boundary. <br />Ms. Taylor stated that while she approved of the points system proposed for evaluating the MUPTE criteria, she felt <br />it was too easy for developers to meet certain portions of the proposed criteria. <br />Mr. Clark indicated that the discussion surrounding the MUPTE program was very interesting to him in that it <br />highlighted the taxpayers’ willingness to accept a short term tax exemption versus the long term tax assessment <br />viability of the properties in question. He reminded the council that while buildings under the MUPTE were tax <br />exempt under the program for the short-term, the land on which the property existed was still taxable. <br />Mr. Clark thanked staff for their work on determining the MUPTE evaluation criteria, and further noted that he was <br />in favor of the proposed boundary options C and F as presented by Mr. Weinman. Mr. Clark maintained that the <br />thth <br />inclusion of the 6 and 7 Avenue corridor and Trainsong Neighborhood into the MUPTE was essential to the well- <br />being of the community. <br />Mr. Clark opposed the elimination of the West University Neighborhood from the MUPTE area boundaries, <br />particularly since his recent conversations with University representatives indicated that there would be an enormous <br />increase in the number of students over the coming years. <br />Ms. Solomon felt that the MUPTE boundary options presented to the council did not need to be an either/or <br />proposition with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of the Trainsong and West University Neighborhoods. She <br />added that she was concerned that removing the West University Neighborhood from the MUPTE boundaries would <br />encourage competition for housing between the Trainsong and West University Neighborhoods. <br />Mr. Weinman, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, clarified the nature of the MUPTE approval criteria points <br />system, noting that the Council was legally obligated to retain the final decision regarding property tax exemptions <br />and that the points system was designed to aid the council in that regard. <br />thth <br />Mr. Poling stated he was in favor of including the 6 and 7 Avenue corridor and the Trainsong Neighborhood within <br />the MUPTE boundaries, stating that its inclusion was vital to the continued prosperity of the area. <br />Mr. Pryor felt that the points system for the MUPTE approval criteria would best be used as a set of flexible <br />guidelines for the council to follow in making their decisions regarding MUPTE approval. He maintained that <br /> <br />MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />