04/10/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e C.B. 1592--Regarding charges for land development; adding Sections 7.275, 7.277, 7.279, 7.281, 7.283, and 7.285 to Code, 1971; and providing for an effective date and declaring on emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. lieuallen said this proposed tax will only pay a portion of the revenue and was needed to raise money to make improvements on the systems. Regarding the equity of the tax, he said no tax system is equitable. He felt Council should adopt the ordinance and attempt to make further improvements for a more equitable distribution at a later da te . e Mr. Delay spoke in favor of the motion, saying he felt this was not creating a new tax but simply shifting revenues for improvements that are needed from the general populace to those areas of development that are creating the most need for that expansion. Ms. Smith expressed her concern regarding housing cost and felt this tax would raise those costs. She supported the need for providing street and sewer improvements, but was also concerned about a group of special people being exempt and a special group being taxed. Mr. Lieuallen reiterated Council was not talking about a new tax, but money that will have to be raised by some source or. another such as a bond issue or assessment. Regarding raising the cost of housing, he did not recall anyone saying it would not. He said perhaps it was more a matter of degree. He questioned why people who have already paid their share of assessments should continue to have to pay for those in the new developed areas. Mr. Obie viewed the tax as being somewhat regressive and preferred to have a tax that would exempt perhaps the first $20,000 in valuation and be more accelerated as the evaluation of single-family homes increased. He did not want to implement a tax that would eliminate the opportunity to buy housing from some people in the city. He also viewed the tax as a limited growth or no growth tool. He found no. problem with that except if such a tool were forcing people to live beyond the boundaries of the city. He preferred a tax to be areawide-- including Springfield, Eugene, and all of Lane County. Further, he said if Council were to adopt the tax in its present form this evening, he felt very strongly it should be referred to the voters. e 4/10/78--6 233