Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />August of 1976, the Downtown Developm~nt Board and staff had been working <br />in cooperation with some of the members of the financial institutions in <br />trying to determine a tax base ratio. Taken into consideration were the <br />number of businesses in the district and the size of the businesses and <br />then some determination was made as to what types of foot traffic each <br />business had. Mr. Bradley asked the staff if it would be comfortable with <br />a decision to postpone this proposed amendment to the ordinance and <br />contact the financial institutions for additional information. The <br />Manager replied by asking when Mr. Biggs felt he could provide informa- <br />tion. Mr. Biggs said he could have the names to the staff within the next <br />two or three days. Manager indicated that he would like to decide on <br />a deadline as it was a pressing matter and the tax would be retroactive to <br />October, 1976. Mr. Flogstad indicated that a plan could be worked out for <br />the February 14 Council meeting. <br /> <br />Councilman Williams questioned Mr. Flogstad in his reference to foot <br />traffic and vehicular traffic, and their comparability, and whether Mr. <br />Flogstad knew that vehicular parking parallels foot traffic going into a <br />bank or financial institution. Mr. Flogstad answered no, that with both <br />mass transit and parking lots being available for banks and retailers, it <br />would be hard to determine. Mr. Williams wondered if it would be possible <br />to interview people going into and coming out of financial institutions to <br />which Mr. Flogstad replied that it could be done and might be helpful. <br />Mr. Obie agreed on a postponement of action by the Council on this pro- <br />posed amendment and indicated he felt others should be involved in deter- <br />mining the fair tax rate for financial .institutions; that perhaps repre- <br />sentatives from each of the different financial institution could be <br />included, as well as the Lane Transit District to see how they are solving <br />their problem, and perhaps an auditing firm tax department to offer some <br />assistance with nationwide research data. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel that the amendment to the downtown <br />development district ordinance relating to taxing financial institutions <br />be postponed to the February 14, 1977 Council meeting with the under- <br />standing that the staff would rely on as many reasonable resources for <br />information. The motion passed unanimously with all Council members <br />present voting aye. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />11-8-1 K. Liquor License--New Outlet--Grocery Carts, 1510 Highway 99 North, Eugene. <br />Manager indicated that this was a package license which had had no <br />previous discussion before the Council; that the local OLCC office <br />required no inspection prior to Council action, and that there were <br />no staff objections to the liquor license being approved. <br /> <br />Public hearing was opened. <br /> <br />Bill McCabe of 85766 Pine Grove Road, owner of the grocery store re- <br />questing the liquor license application, said that the application had <br />been made December 15, 1976, and was told that it would take 14 working <br />days for the application to be processed, but that that time limit had <br />passed and there seemed to be some confusion in the City Manager's office <br />as to the disposition of this liquor license. He felt that the time lag <br />involvement was longer than seemingly necessary and that the application <br />had been in process for a long enough time and should be approved. <br /> <br />1/24/77 - 15 <br /> <br />51 <br />