My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 05/22/06 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2006
>
CC Minutes - 05/22/06 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:28:51 AM
Creation date
6/30/2006 3:49:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/22/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. Klein clarified that the term “citizen-initiated” meant requested by the property owner because the <br />rezoning would not become effective until the tax was paid. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she would support Option 1 with a 25 percent tax and Ms. Bettman’s amendment with the <br />caveat that the tax would not be collected until the use changed. She felt that Option 3 was too expensive to <br />implement. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé thanked staff for a well written AIS. He asked if churches and nonprofit organizations would be <br />exempt from the givings tax. Mr. Klein said the option did not contain any exemptions as written, although <br />the council could direct staff to include specific exemptions. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked when a property would have increased value on the tax rolls and provide increased revenue. <br />Senior Management Analyst Larry Hill said that Lane County typically did not revalue property that had a <br />change in use or plan designation until the County became aware that the change had actually occurred and <br />that could be immediately or months or years later. He said typically the County was notified that a change <br />occurred when there was a land use permit filed and the City transmitted that information to the County. He <br />said it was not possible to rely on the County’s tax records to indicate the value at the current zoning or plan <br />designation. <br /> <br />Referring to Ms. Bettman’s proposal to not tax property brought into the UGB until it was sold, Mr. Papé <br />said he could not agree with that if the new owner was going to keep the property in the same use, such as a <br />homestead. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said the option still felt like double taxation and she would not support it. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordi- <br />nance for Option 1 with a flat tax percentage of a range and schedule a public hearing be- <br />fore the Planning Commission and City Council on the draft ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman offered 25 percent as a friendly amendment. Ms. Solomon declined to accept <br />the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to specify a flat tax of <br />25 percent. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the tax rate representing a starting point for discussion. She said that Measure 37 liability <br />in terms of future claims would require a funding source. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the rate would give the public something to react to during public hearings and he would <br />support the amendment. <br /> <br />The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Mr. <br />Kelly, and Ms. Ortiz voting in support, and Mr. Papé, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor and Ms. <br />Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion and it <br />passed on a final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.