CCMinutes - 08/09/04 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Kelly noted the City's contributions to the renovations being done to the Shelton-McMurphey- Johnson House, which were being completed incrementally over a period of years. Councilor Kelly noted his previously expressed concerns about the proposed district expiration date and said nothing had been presented in testimony to change his mind. He preferred a 20-year, rather than a 25-year expiration date. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of council questions. Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman regarding the notice required for Type II plan amend- ments, Mr. Weinman said that notice was provided to all property owners and affected taxing jurisdictions. He said that changing the district's indebtedness required both a public process and council action to approve the change. Councilor Bettman asked if the maximum-allowed $500,000 expenditure was an annual or one-time expenditure. Mr. Weinman indicated he would follow up. Councilor Bettman requested that staff prepare text that reduced that amount to $250,000 and indicate clearly it was per-annum Mr. Weinman believed the text in question was taken from State law and indicated he would check with the City Attorney. Councilor Bettman shared Councilor Kelly's concerns about the expiration date for the district. She asked what justification existed if the district never sunsetted, given it had started in 1968 and was proposed to be extended for another 25 years. She requested an answer in writing. Councilor Kelly asked Ms. Cutsogeorge to discuss the downtown urban renewal line item that appeared on residents' property tax bills. Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that the reference in the staff response to questions (Attachment F) to "the division of tax" referred to the incremental value times the overlapping tax rate for the all the jurisdictions. There was also a line item for the downtown special levy. Councilor Kelly asked how the downtown district could receive $1.9 million from the division of tax and, from information shown on page 3 of Attachment F, forgo only $830,000. Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that division of tax took into account all overlapping jurisdictions and bonded debt, and applied those tax rates, so the $1.9 million was the total for all taxing districts, not just Eugene's. 4. ACTION Applications for Two Low-Income Housing Tax Exemptions Resolution 4803 Approving a Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption for Prop- erty Located at 2640-2694 Edgewood Drive, Eugene, Oregon (Tax Lot 17-04-12-33-0600). (Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation--Apple Orchard Development); and Resolution 4804 Approving a Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption for a Por- tion of the Property Located at 150 Santa Clara Avenue (Tax Lot 17-04-11-43-00800). (St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County) Mr. Weinman noted that a third application submitted by Public Private Partnerships, Inc., had been withdrawn earlier that day by the applicant. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 8 Regular Session