Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />Regarding the amendments to be considered during the next few months <br />by Council while the ordinance might be observed in operation, staff <br />has preliminary figures regarding Mr. Obie's reques~ for exemption of <br />the first $20,000 on residential property. Also, amendments could be <br />addressed toward exemptions for the central area and urban renewal areas. <br />This study is to be presented for Council consideration. Also, a study <br />on the impact on housing costs and what further could be done about <br />it would be forthcoming. <br /> <br />Ms. Ni.ven said the memo from JHC indicates their concerns regarding <br />the tax. She said some banks and savings and loan institutions have <br />indicated even if the tax were a secondary position as a lien, it still <br />might not be accepted. Thus, the City would have to collect the charge <br />without recourse to a lien, but recourse to a penalty payment. She <br />indicated JHC was not happy with the situation as it stands. <br /> <br />Regarding the April 11 effective date for the ordinance, Manager said <br />that date may have to be defended as an amendment process could take <br />a lengthy time. Stan Long, City Attorney, said at some point that <br />effective date would become unreasonable but he could not specify at <br />what point. He said two months would probably be within a reasonable <br />limit for consideration of amendments. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Obie said his motion to reconsider was for adjustments, not for <br />defeating the tax. He thought Council had voted on the basis of the <br />information presented, i.e., the feasibility of time payments. How- <br />ever, it now seems obvious that that is not feasible and there are other <br />things to consider such as reduction in maximum loan eligibility, lending <br />institutions who might not set up a reserve for payment, and the time <br />payment plan as presented is not workable. His motion for reconsideration <br />was to allow a short period of time for altering the ordinance regarding <br />the method of time payments to avoid additional up-front charges. His <br />main concern was that in our society today, those who own property are the <br />monied and the government. It is becoming less feasible for individuals <br />to acquire property. He felt if the ordinance were going to be used, then <br />it shoul d be impl emented in the most gentl e manner. <br /> <br />Mr. Haws considered the issue a bunch of hot air. He said anything <br />new to the system was often viewed as not being workable, and felt this <br />might be the reason the banks and savings and loans were opposing it. He <br />felt the attorney would be able to come up with creative ways for imple- <br />mentation. He was going to oppose the motion because he had heard nothing <br />valid for reconsideration. <br /> <br />Mr. Delay's general inclination was to agree with Mr. Obie that there <br />are other things that might be done to fine-tune the ordinance. How- <br />ever when considering the front-end costs, he felt there was no way to <br />avoid that problem. A certain amount of taxes are needed to accommodate <br />the growth of the area and it was a question of who was going to pay <br />for those. This ordinance would ask that 35 percent not be paid by <br />capital funds and general taxes, but by those persons who are purchasing <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />5/22/78--13 <br /> <br />375 <br />