My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/10/1979 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1979
>
01/10/1979 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 5:22:08 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:32:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/10/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Miller, Manager noted the subsidies <br />in the urban renewal area are inherent in the Renewal Agency plan that is <br />presented and reviewed by both the Planning. Commission and Council. Other <br />subsidies do come about by direct request from the Joint Housing Committee <br />and have to be acted upon by Council. Ms. Miller said it seemed that in <br />the latter category, perhaps Council could consider the subsidy and SOT <br />exemption at the time it considers those requests. <br /> <br />Mr. Haws said he was not opposed to the concept, but was opposed to <br />a blanket exemption for certain types of programs for certain areas of <br />town. He did not like the way it was being done. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mayor Keller, Manager said a good example <br />of a multi-subsidy was the housing project proposed for the Willagillespie <br />area, wherein the Federal, Lane County, and City governments were all <br />involved. <br /> <br />Mr. Obie agreed with Ms. Miller's suggestion that Council consider the <br />subsidies and SOT exemptions at the time of request on a case-by-case <br />basis. Mr. Lieuallen thought that made sense on fairly specific cases, <br />i.e., housing, but noted there may be others that are not so specific, <br />i.e., retail or commerical requests. Mr. Obie thought commercial interests <br />such as hotel developers would be very willing to come before Council <br />to discuss the issue. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Manager said when the matter does come before Council, the Council should <br />have criteria written into the Code for passing judgment. Assistant <br />Manager said if Council is going to determine whether or not SDT exemp- <br />tions should be applied or waived, it will have to set out criteria so <br />those decisions do not appear to be subjective. <br /> <br />Mr. Delay said Council needed to make a decision as to whether the staff <br />was to bring back alternative suggestions for this to be an administrative <br />procedure or Council decision on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Smith suggested <br />Mr. Delay withdraw his motion, and have staff bring back alternatives and <br />suggestions for a list of criteria. <br /> <br />Mr. Delay, with consent of Ms. Smith, withdrew his motion. <br /> <br />Mayor Keller requested that Charles Kupper, Director of HCC, be included <br />in the discussion. Ms. Schue requested that staff deal with the defini- <br />tion of subsidy. <br /> <br />A short recess was taken. <br /> <br />Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt staff's recommen- <br />dation that small residential and commercial developments of <br />$5,000 or less valuation be exempted from the Systems Development <br />Tax. <br /> <br />Mr. Delay said it was obvious that in dealing with these small permits, <br />the administrative costs far outweigh the revenue generated. He wondered <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />1/10/79--13 <br /> <br />23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.