Laserfiche WebLink
the sentiment expressed that such housing would be built without the subsidy. He could not justify the MUPTE in <br />the face of the budget deficit and intended to oppose the motion. <br />Councilor Brown observed that the project had met two requirements, in that the proposal was over the 100 point <br />threshold for community benefit and the neighborhood supported it. He also felt the project was better because of <br />the commercial on the ground floor. He supported having another work session on the MUPTE zone near the <br />University in the future. He commented that it was hard to come from a Budget Committee meeting the previous <br />week and "just give away $75,000." He said he would support the MUPTE. <br />Councilor Solomon reminded her colleagues that the exemption was for ten years, but only applied to the <br />improvements. The owner still paid taxes on the property in the interim. She strongly felt that the MUPTE <br />projects that they had approved were of a better and stronger quality than the projects that had been built without <br />the MUPTE exemptions. <br />Mayor Piercy indicated her willingness to discuss the MUPTE boundaries again, but for the present the area was <br />currently designated for MUPTE projects and the project met all qualifications. She agreed that something would <br />be built on the property no matter what, but she would prefer to have it built to LEER standards. <br />Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Zelenka and Taylor voting in opposition. <br />The meeting adj ourned at 8 :10 p.m. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />Jon Ruiz <br />City Manager <br />(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) <br />MINUTES Eugene City Council February 8, 2010 Page 5 <br />Regular Meeting <br />