Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

igible property owners on a pro rata share. The portion of the assessment not eligible for de- ferral shall be paid in accordance with section 7.190 of this code. Mayor Piercy pointed out that not all seniors were low-income, and the amendment could put those who might not have significant need at the head of the line. Ms. Taylor did not support the motion. She said that people would not take advantage of the assessment deferral unless they needed to, given that both interest and liens were involved. She learned from staff that most people did not take advantage of the senior property tax exemption unless they needed to. She thought it would be complicated to ask people to prove that they needed the deferral. She did not think the deferral should depend on age or income, and did not think many would use the deferral. At the behest of Ms. Ortiz, City Engineer Mark Schoening described the deferral application process, which required proof of income in the form of income tax returns. That occurred before assessments were levied. The proposed change would affect the process after that point. He did not believe the amendment pit those who chose to defer payment until they sold their house against those opting for a low-income or senior deferral because that decision had been made long before. Mr. Zelenka indicated his intent was to prioritize the existing limited funding because more people would be subject to assessments in the future and he feared the funds would be depleted more quickly. Mr. Pryor supported the addition of low-income residents but questioned the addition of senior residents. He thought Ms. Taylor’s remarks were well-taken. Ms. Solomon recalled that low-income residents, including seniors, were already eligible for a subsidy; a citizen could secure a subsidy but not a deferral. Mr. Schoening concurred. Ms. Solomon pointed out that left the deferral pool for everyone else. She wanted to be sensitive to those who might not have a job in the future. She feared that a street assessment could threaten such individuals’ ability to keep their homes and wanted them to be able to eligible to apply to the pool for a deferral. The amendment to the motion failed, 7:1; Mr. Zelenka voting yes. Speaking to the main motion, Mr. Clark indicated that while he supported the majority of the recommenda- tions of the Council Subcommittee on Street Assessment Policy, he intended to vote no because of his concern that some residents would be assessed twice for road improvements. The assessment was not based on where one’s home was, but on who was driving on what street. He felt that basis for the assessment was wrong. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Clark voting no. B. WORK SESSION: Envision Eugene Update—Economic Prosperity Community Resource Group members Sue Prichard, Bill Aspegren, Ed McMahon, and Laurel Potter joined the council for the item. Community Development Manager Mike Sullivan and Associate Planner Jason Dedrick provided a PowerPoint presentation on the economic prosperity element of the Envision Eugene planning process. The presentation highlighted local economic trends; current conditions; the economic goals and strategies recommended by a joint committee of elected officials from Springfield, Lane County, MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 15, 2010 Page 2 Work Session