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