CCMinutes - 04/21/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

be used to give more weight to the City's arguments once arbitration between the three jurisdictions and Comcast commenced. Mr. Lidz indicated the City could employ other decisions for persuasive value, but they were not legally binding on anyone other than the parties subject to them. Mr. Poling said he had initially planned to oppose the motion as he did not think the net gain would be worth the damage done to a good corporate citizen. However, based on legal advice and the background materials, he would support the motion at this time. Ms. Solomon said she would not support the motion. It ~felt hostile" to her and was not business-friendly toward a good corporate citizen. Mr. Meisner said the City needed to enforce its agreements. He confirmed with Mr. Klein that the outcome of binding arbitration was legally enforceable. Mr. Meisner asked about the potential of an appeal. Mr. Mecham indicated the franchise agreement does not provide for an appeal. Ms. Nathanson agreed with the remarks of Mr. Poling. She appreciated Comcast's community contribu- tions, but the situation at hand regarded a specific contractual issue. Mayor Torrey agreed Comcast was a good community citizen. However, he believed it was in the best interest of both parties that the issue be resolved before the next franchise agreement was negotiated. The motion passed, 7:1, Ms. Solomon voting no. B. An Ordinance Concerning Multiple Unit Housing and Amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mr. Taylor introduced the item, reminding the council that it recently adopted the Downtown Plan, and an important element to realizing the plan's vision was downtown housing. The Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) was a tool to help stimulate downtown housing. Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman was present for the item. Mr. Weinman said the MUPTE was designed to induce new housing in downtown. Improvements were exempted for ten years while the land continued to be taxed. State statutes govern the MUPTE, and stipulate any development receiving the exemption must prove it would not have been built without the exemption. Mr. Weinman reported that the community had examples of developments that returned in taxes more the first year after the exemption ended than was foregone the previous ten years, had the project not been constructed. Mr. Weinman recalled the public hearing that was held on the ordinance and the ten people who testified in favor of the program. Four requested specific border modifications and two supported additional standards. Mr. Weinman noted the options before the council: Option 1 replaced the public benefits portion of the current application with one that referenced seven quality standards; Option 2 placed those quality standards in the preamble of the application with the expectation the applicant would address them; Option 3 retained MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 21, 2004 Page 3 Work Session