Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />Mr. Haws requested a copy of the research information for Council regarding <br />the changing of the name from charge to tax. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Smith, Manager said it would probably <br />not be a tax deduction by IRS standards as special assessment taxes <br />usually are not. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieuallen questioned Section 7.279, and Manager replied generally <br />it had been changed to define the three bases upon which the charge <br />is computed. Mr. Gilman said Section 1 relates to the properties within <br />the city that may not be converted to sewers. The ordinance provides <br />persons are supposed to convert within 18 months; this ordinance pro- <br />vides that any property that can do so, will have 18 months and if they <br />fail to do so, they would have to pay the sewer portion of the charge. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieua1len questioned why there was a flat rate for mobile homes. <br />Mr. Gilman said the flat rate applies to a mobile home park assessed <br />against the spaces, as it would not be known what type of home would <br />be put on the space. He said the mobile park homeowner pays the fee. <br />In regard to mobile home subdivisions and other mobile home developments, <br />it would be charged on the basis of an estimate of the value of the <br />mobile home. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Lieuallen questioned Section 7.277 regarding religious buildings <br />being exempt. Mr. Gilman said there was an attempt to relate those <br />types of uses to the demands put on the system. It was felt the struc- <br />tures use half as much demand as other construction. The charge relates <br />to the structural value, and he noted churches were pretty expensive <br />in terms of the amount of use. It was felt if the religious structures <br />were charged for the whole amount relative to the services they get, it <br />might be an unfair assessment. <br /> <br />Mr. Bradley questioned the difference between the use of public funds <br />and private funds in the central area, noting perhaps the Council should <br />not be subsidizing private funds. Manager replied it related to a policy <br />question in that the City was trying to stimulate in-filling of the <br />central area and this was one tool to be used. John Porter, Planning <br />Director, said based on a neighborhood analysis of the city, it is impor- <br />tant to get private investments in the central area as there are not <br />enough public funds to be used there. He noted also that as this area <br />is built up, perhaps other areas in the city would qualify for the exemp- <br />tion in order to stimulate private funds and investments in those areas. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Betty Niven, Chairman, JHC, said the Committee had looked at the changes <br />and was pleased with those that had been made. However, there was <br />one aspect with which the Committee was concerned: The schedule for <br />repayment. She understood the Finance Department's concern in admini- <br />stering the five-year financing option. However, the Committee was <br />shocked to see the five-year financing option at eight percent interest. <br />She noted the payment schedule as prepared by Don Gilman, dated March 10, <br />1978, and compared the per-monthly cost for a 28-year as compared with a <br />five-year tax. It was hoped that somehow the financing would be scheduled <br /> <br />3/15/78--9 <br /> <br />'1~ <br />