My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 08/10/09 Meeting
>
Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:08:13 PM
Creation date
8/7/2009 12:17:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
8/10/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
use of a MUPTE was the way to go. He felt that if the MUPTE were used, it should be available to all <br />areas of the city. <br /> <br />Urban Services Manager for the Community Development Division Richie Weinman noted that the program <br />was governed by state law. He said the program was available only in the core area or along transit-oriented <br />areas. He stated that the boundaries were chosen by the council, which had debated the issue at great length <br />numerous times. He did not believe the entire town could qualify for the MUPTE under state law. <br /> <br />Councilor Brown commented that “oddly enough” he was going to support it. He believed it was a good <br />project and that there had been a lot of inappropriate developments without the MUPTE in the WUN. He <br />looked forward to seeing the Infill Compatibility Standards. He felt the conclusions and recommendations <br />would help to solve a lot of problems. He supported maintaining the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) where <br />it was for as long as possible. He believed that projects such as the one before the council helped to do this. <br />While he still opposed the MUPTE in general, the approval of the WUN had contributed to his decision to <br />support this particular project. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark respectfully disagreed with Councilor Brown’s assertion that it was the University’s <br />responsibility to provide students with housing. He looked at the students of the University as members of <br />the broader community, rather than as members of the University community. He believed that the City <br />benefited from having the student population as members of the larger community. He indicated he would <br />support the MUPTE as a matter of principle. He declared that this was not a matter of simple affordability <br />and whether or not it was affordable or profitable to build housing in that area or in another area, it was <br />about what kind of housing would be built. He underscored that they had spent a lot of time discussing <br />impacts on neighborhoods and what kind of housing should be built. He averred that they wanted to build <br />“very nice stuff” that had a low impact on existing neighborhoods. He observed that the City had a lot of <br />requirements for people who would build or rebuild homes in existing neighborhoods. He believed that this <br />helped to make Eugene a better city and the MUPTE was a good tool toward that end. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor reiterated her feeling that if everyone who had a good project received a tax exemption, <br />there would not be money with which to run the City. She declared that the City ran on taxes and that <br />everyone should pay taxes. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon thanked staff for providing Attachment G in the AIS, which detailed the tax exemption. <br />She explained that during the ten years the project would be exempt from taxes only on the value of the <br />building (the value of the land would still be on the tax roll), the foregone taxes would come to $34,530. <br />th <br />She stressed that in the 11 year, after the MUPTE had expired, the taxes on the development were <br />projected to be $40,000. She considered the project to be a “net gain on all fronts.” <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy believed the project could only be built at the level of quality that was proposed with the <br />exemption. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Zelenka and Taylor voting in opposition. <br /> <br />3. ACTION: <br /> <br />Ratification of Unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions and Discussion and <br />Action on Non-unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions on Legislative Policy <br />from May 20, 2009 <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka stated that the only bill before the council was House Bill (HB) 3485, which would <br />establish a tax credit for transportation of woody biomass from forest management operations to biofuel <br />producers. <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 6 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.