03/15/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

for smaller payments. She noted the higher charge would be passed on to renters; also homeowners experience higher costs in new construction, thus ~ the tax would serve to be a disadvantage for both. The JHC would like ..., Council to accept the ten-year period for payment and, if not, then eight-year payment. She also noted for Council that most Bancrofting payments run thei r full-term peri ode In regard to Mr. Haws I concern about the term used, she said the JHC did not object to it being called a tax in the sense that it would not be.a lien against the homeowner. In response to a question from Mr. Lieuallen, Manager said the 1948 date for annexation was used as there were substantial annexations after that date. As an example, if a property were annexed in 1950, there would be a two-percent addition to the basic charge. Regarding the exemption of religious buildings, Mr. Lieuallen wondered if the buildings would be assessed at a greater value if they were not churches and whether this was saying such structures were of better quality. The Assistant Manager noted the religious buildings were usually of very different construction. Mr. Lieuallen wondered further if this was not putting a negative incentive on construction, thus giving incentive to poor quality of construction for less assessed value. Ms. Niven replied that is a problem with the whole property tax system. Mr. Lieuallen questioned further if the reduced tax charge was based entirely on the reason that the buildings were used less than others. Mr. Gilman said yes, it was strictly on the service demands as they related to the cost of the systems. Regarding Mr. Lieuallen's question regarding the cost of construction, Mr. Gilman said most of the permit ~ valuations are based on the average cost per square foot and he did .., not think this charge would encourage someone to build less quality facilities. In answer to a question from Mr. Bradley, Manager said less revenue would be raised because of the exemptions. He said for the next five years the City will need $10 million for storm sewers and arterials alone. It is hoped $3.5 million would come from the tax. The city taxpayers woul d have ~o provi de the remai nder. Mr. Delay questioned why the percentage had been dropped from 50 to 35 percent for arterials and storm sewer funds. Assistant Manager said the assessment policy had been changed. Mr. Delay then continued the only weakness he saw in the proposed ordinance was not targeting a suffi- cient amount of the required dollars for new funding to come from this tax. Ms. Niven relayed a concern of JHC regarding the ease with which the tax could be increased. She assumed it would have to be done by ordi- nance, and that the citizens would be properly notified before such an increase. This was affirmed. - 3/15178--10 l :, \11