04/10/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f' - Jim Lemert, 10 East 40th, questioned a possible conflict of interest for Councilor Obie because of his proposed development on West 11th Avenue. David Rynerson, 4468 Fox Hollow, was in favor of the use of the new tax in partial funding of arterials. He felt an overall city-wide tax to help pay the cost of such projects was beneficial rather than having those who live on a particular arterial being assessed for the entire improvement project. - Those speaking against the systems development tax were as follows: Vernon D. Gleaves, 975 Oak, represented the Homebuildersl Association of Lane County and Eugene Board of Realtors. The basic position was that there had been no real changes in the proposal and the ones that have been made create even greater inequities than the first proposal. He said there was no factual basis for this assessment. If this is clearly a tax, he believed it was contrary to the Oregon Constitution. and cited various sections which he felt were violated. It was also believed that this tax would increase the cost of housing and drive development outside of the city into outlying communitites. However, persons living outside the city will still be using city services, but will not be paying the basic taxes. He said regarding the financing, there was some question as to whether the ordinance is sufficiently definitive in that the finance offic~may have the discretion to declare a lien. He also raised the possibility that some lenders will require payment of this tax before a mortgage goes on the record. Further, he believed the exemptions created inequities and noted that some of the utilities in the older areas (in the exempt area) are in very bad condition and would have to be replaced, thus causing other citizens in the city to subsidize the exempt area. Regarding the exemotion of the urban renewal area, it was felt there was no need for this exemption as it had already had advantages from many other programs and, again, people in the outlying areas would have to pay additional taxes to support this area of the city. Regardless of the change in the name to tax, he felt the proposed ordinance was an amendment to the assessment ordinances and should belong in the Code chapter dealing with assessment practices, and according to City Charter would have to be adopted by a two/thirds vote of Council. He was further concerned regarding the emergency clause in that if this is a tax and not an assessment, the measure is subject to referendum by the voters and the emergency clause cannot be affixed. He said if the emergency clause were permitted, the proposed language of Section 7.235 did not comply with provisions of Section 32 of the Charter (sic Code) which requires the ordinance set forth the reasons why it is necessary. He felt the entire proposal should be dropped and the only logical way to raise the revenue would be to increase the tax base of the city. If that were not obtained, then a monthly charge could be included and collected by EWEB such as is done with the present sewer-user charge. Figures he used were $1.25 per month for residential users' and SlO per month for industrial users, which would raise revenue of approximately $656,000. It would be easily collected. Thus, he disagreed with the entire systems development tax proposal. - Z~ 4/10/78 -- 2