Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Brown shared Mayor Piercy's interest in neighborhood consultation for all developments to ensure <br />greater compatibility. He suggested the presentation was incomplete because it lacked information about <br />the value of non -MUPTE projects completed in the same period, their previous taxes, and the taxes from <br />the increased value of development. He also requested information about how much in property taxes the <br />City had forgone for MUPTE projects. <br />Mr. Pryor endorsed Mr. Brown's information requests. He believed it was more challenging to quantify <br />the benefits of MUPTE than its costs. He suggested the benefits included intangible benefits such as <br />project quality, neighborhood livability, and compatibility with growth plans and also spoke to the <br />question of what else would have happened in the absence of the MUPTE. <br />Mr. Pryor did not think it would be an efficient use of staff time to do further work on the WUN given the <br />apparent lack of council support for further applications in that area. He suggested the council could <br />reinstate MUPTE in the WUN in the future. Mr. Pryor supported the extension of the existing MUPTE <br />application in the WUN because he believed the project delays were legitimate. <br />Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Pryor. He said MUPTE had run its course in the WUN and it was time to <br />move on. He agreed with Ms. Ortiz about the Trainsong/6 and 7 th area as the next priority area to apply <br />MUPTE in. However, he preferred to hear additional input from residents in the other identified <br />transportation corridors before making a final decision. He also supported the extension of the existing <br />MUPTE application in the West University area. <br />Mayor Piercy supported the direction the council appeared to be taking in regard to the WUN. The WUN <br />was unique for its lack of owner - occupied housing and that spurred the need for a discussion about the <br />type of neighborhood input that would be most meaningful. She encouraged staff to reach out to the <br />residents of the South University Neighborhood. <br />City Manager Ruiz requested formal council action about staff's focus as it regarded the WUN. He <br />pointed out that the first neighborhood planning effort initiated through Envision Eugene would focus on <br />the West and South University neighborhoods and suggested the council could revisit the topic when it <br />considered those plans. <br />Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to direct staff not to spend any more time on <br />the MUPTE in the West University Neighborhood. <br />Mr. Farr believed that MUPTE supported the Seven Pillars and could help conditions in the WUN. He <br />believed it was premature to drop the use of MUPTE in that neighborhood and agreed with the manager <br />that the council could revisit the topic in the future. He preferred to retain the tool and seek additional <br />community input. <br />Mr. Clark wanted to proceed in the most effective manner and suggested the council refrain from taking <br />options off the table at this time. He suggested the potential a project could come up in the WUN that the <br />council wanted to support with MUPTE. He believed the council needed more empirical evidence to <br />determine whether a project would or would not proceed without MUPTE. <br />Mr. Poling suggested if council's future discussions about the implementation of Envision Eugene <br />pointed it back to MUPTE, it should not hesitate to revisit it. At this point, he preferred to move on to <br />another area. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council October 12, 2011 Page 4 <br />Work Session <br />