CC Minutes - 05/26/09 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

use of a MUPTE was the way to go. He felt that if the MUPTE were used, it should be available to all areas of the city. Urban Services Manager for the Community Development Division Richie Weinman noted that the program was governed by state law. He said the program was available only in the core area or along transit-oriented areas. He stated that the boundaries were chosen by the council, which had debated the issue at great length numerous times. He did not believe the entire town could qualify for the MUPTE under state law. Councilor Brown commented that “oddly enough” he was going to support it. He believed it was a good project and that there had been a lot of inappropriate developments without the MUPTE in the WUN. He looked forward to seeing the Infill Compatibility Standards. He felt the conclusions and recommendations would help to solve a lot of problems. He supported maintaining the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) where it was for as long as possible. He believed that projects such as the one before the council helped to do this. While he still opposed the MUPTE in general, the approval of the WUN had contributed to his decision to support this particular project. Councilor Clark respectfully disagreed with Councilor Brown’s assertion that it was the University’s responsibility to provide students with housing. He looked at the students of the University as members of the broader community, rather than as members of the University community. He believed that the City benefited from having the student population as members of the larger community. He indicated he would support the MUPTE as a matter of principle. He declared that this was not a matter of simple affordability and whether or not it was affordable or profitable to build housing in that area or in another area, it was about what kind of housing would be built. He underscored that they had spent a lot of time discussing impacts on neighborhoods and what kind of housing should be built. He averred that they wanted to build “very nice stuff” that had a low impact on existing neighborhoods. He observed that the City had a lot of requirements for people who would build or rebuild homes in existing neighborhoods. He believed that this helped to make Eugene a better city and the MUPTE was a good tool toward that end. Councilor Taylor reiterated her feeling that if everyone who had a good project received a tax exemption, there would not be money with which to run the City. She declared that the City ran on taxes and that everyone should pay taxes. Councilor Solomon thanked staff for providing Attachment G in the AIS, which detailed the tax exemption. She explained that during the ten years the project would be exempt from taxes only on the value of the building (the value of the land would still be on the tax roll); the foregone taxes would come to $34,530. th She stressed that in the 11 year, after the MUPTE had expired, the taxes on the development were projected to be $40,000. She considered the project to be a “net gain on all fronts.” Mayor Piercy believed the project could only be built at the level of quality that was proposed with the exemption. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Zelenka and Taylor voting in opposition. 3. ACTION: Ratification of Unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions and Discussion and Action on Non-unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions on Legislative Policy from May 20, 2009 MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting