Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />that is a Lane County request and under their jurisdiction, which <br />makes it less complicated. He felt the proposed development was an <br />excellent one in terms of increasing densities and providing a good <br />standard of living. <br /> <br />Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. <br /> <br />A short recess was taken. <br /> <br />C. Systems Development Tax: Consideration of Amendments <br /> <br />Manager said a series of amendments to the systems development tax <br />have been proposed by staff and discussed by Council. The hearing <br />"tonight" is for action on those proposed amendments. The suggested <br />,amendments by Council have been incorporated into an ordinance <br />attached to Council's agenda. He reviewed the proposed amendments. <br />Section 7.275 defines "financial support." The definition <br />describes four types of support which the City may provide for devel- <br />opment. Section 7.279(2) allows an exemption from the tax for <br />developments of $5,000 or less value because of the small amount of <br />revenue relative to administrative costs. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Section 7.279(3) involves a reduction or exemption from the tax for <br />developments which receive financial support from the City. Three <br />alternatives were provided for Council IS consideration under this <br />section: Alternative 1 remains the same as the existing ordinance <br />which allows the Council to grant a reduction only to "housing" <br />development, based on a determination of benefit to the City. Alter- <br />native 2 woul d expand the tax reduction to "housing and otherll <br />development when the Council determines it to be in the best interest <br />of the City. The amount of reduction would be equal to the amount of <br />financial support. Alternative 3 would provide a tax reduction to any <br />development which receives financial support from the City, equal to <br />the amount of the support. Council consideration or action would be <br />required only if the question was brought to the Council IS attention. <br />Staff recommended Alternative 3, which would provide adequate guide- <br />lines for consistent administration and would not place additional <br />work loads on the Council. <br /> <br />Other amendments in the ordinance included Section 7.279(4) which <br />would exempt local governmental agencies from the tax. Section <br />7.279(5} would allow an exemption from the drainage portion of the <br />tax for parking lots paved prior to April 1981. This would encourage <br />paving of existing unpaved parking areas. Section 7.281(2} would <br />reduce from six months to 90 days the delinquency period for contrac- <br />tual time payments of the tax. It was noted that to date 30 to 40 percent <br />of the time payments have not been made on time and this would allow <br />the City to take more prompt action on collections. Manager said <br />Don Gilman, Assistant Public Works Director; Joyce Benjamin, City <br />Attorney; and Sherm Flogstad, Finance Director, were available to <br />discuss any of Council IS concerns and to answer questions. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />2/12/79--11 <br /> <br />75 <br />