07/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

recommended tham as a basically equitable adjustment. He noted,ther: was a dif- ference between those operations renting machines and an operatlon llke the McCown's who owned the amusement devices. . d d if there would be any administrative problems with fees -- Counc~ lman Haws won ere , .' . d I 'd'ng scale such as the gambling tables. Ass~stant Manager expla~ned base on a s ~ ~ . ' . that the number of machines vary in the business.operat~on ~tself. Each t~me a new machine was added an inspection would have to ~e made: The c~rrent method, is to issue a sticker for the machines under the l~cense ~ssued w~th followup ~n- spection on an annual basis. Mrs. McCown said that was the reason a flat,fee was requested, it saved both the operator and the city the hassle everY,t~me a new machine was added every two weeks or so. She added that another th~ng to, remember was that other vendors were splitting the $25.00 fee between the dev~ce and the license resulting in an actual fee per device of $12.50 as oppo~ed to the d f f $15 00 Also most other amusement devices were located ~n tavern arca e ee 0 .. , .' d type operations, higher income locations, whereas the~r estab1~shment att~acte mostly young people without that much money to spend. Councilman Haws asked what justified the reduction in license fee from $60.00 to $25.00. Shirley Swenson, finance department, said it ~as based on a survey of costs in administering the licensing procedure and pol~ce department expenses. She said they were regulatory costs and this adjustment they felt would adequately cover those costs. Comm Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to schedule public hearing on 7/9/75 Mrs. Pub Hrng the proposed amendment. Motion carried unanimously. . 1-B-2 Assistant Manager reviewed provisions of the proposed code amendment (see committee minutes above). . Public hearing was opened. Cheryl McCown, 2645 Willamette Street, said she had initiated the proposed amendment 1-B-3 primarily because her establishment had so many amusement machines in one location. The resulting license fees were too high, she thought, and she proposed a flat fee of $200 per location. She quoted figures indicating the proposed arcade licensing fee, although a reduction from the present code provisions, would still be quite high for a business where the amusement devices were the primary source of income. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. . Assistant Manager said the amendment presented was an attempt to address the concerns expressed by the McCown's, that the reason their fees would be high in relation to other establishments where coin operated machines were located was because they had a substantially larger number of machines. Mrs. McCown reiterated her position that the fee should be charged on a per-location basis rather than the number of machines. Assistant Manager answered that staff was trying to avoid becoming involved in the financial arrangement between the owners of the devices and the persons operating them. The arcade license with the "one shot" application fee would facilitate super- vision of machines and reduce the cost of machines in an arcade establishment. How- ever, that particular requirement would have to be balanced against the single coin operated machines located throughout the community. He felt the amendment as pro- posed was more consistent, would strike a better balance, and minimize the city's administrative costs. -- Counci 1 Bill No. 892 - Amending Sections 3.005 and 3.010 of the City Code re: Arcade and amusement device licensing and fees was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full, 7/14/75 - 6 "313