Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/1979 Meeting - - e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL January 10, 1979 Adjourned meeting from January 3, 1979, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller January 10, 1979, 11:30 a.m., King's Table, Oakway Mall, with the following Councilors present: Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilor D.W. Hamel was absent. I. Election of Council President and Vice President Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to cast a unanimous ballot for Councilor Delay as president, and Councilor Smith as vice president. Mr. Haws moved to amend the motion, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to segregate election of the two officers. Mr. Haws said, by tradition, the vote had been cast separately. Mr. Delay felt a separate action was not particularly necessary, but felt it followed the rules of order. Vote was taken on the amendment, which carried unanimously. Vote was taken on the motion to elect Councilor Delay as president, which carried unanimously. Vote was taken on the motion for Councilor Smith as vice president, which carried unanimously. Mayor Keller congratulated the Councilors on their election. II. Mayor's State of City Address (Copies available in City Manager's Office) III. Items from Mayor and Council A. Appointments to Boards and Commissions--Mayor Keller had distri- buted a list of nominations, some of which required Council action. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the recommended list of appointments distributed by Mayor Keller January 3, 1979. I Mr. Haws moved to amend the motion, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the Councilor assigned to Metro Plan Policy Committee be deleted, and Gretchen Miller's name be submitted as the represen- tative. , 1/10/79--1 II At the request of Councilor Hamel, who was absent from this meeting, Mr. Obie requested that the item be held over for discussion at a later meeting. 411' Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to segregate Councilor assignment to Metro Plan Policy Committee. Motion carried unanimously. Vote was taken on the motion to approve the other appointments, which carried unamimously. Those persons appointed to boards and commissions were as follows: Airport Commission Robert Talbott, 144 E. 14th Reappointment, term ending 1/1/83 Building/Housing Code Board of Appeals Bob Kime, 2710 Tyler Term ending 1/1/83 Paul Edlund, 1810 W. 24th (Architect) Reappointment, term ending 1/1/84 Gaming Commission Joe Soderberg, Lumbermen's Buying Service, Reappointment, term ending 1/1/81 Library Board Elizabeth Engelcke, 2164 University Term ending 1/1/81 e Margaret Runkel, 610 Kingswood Term ending 1/1/83 Plumbing Board Don Smith, 460 East 2nd (Architect) Reappointment, term ending 1/1/84 Jim Vos, 272 Van Buren (Contractor) Reappointment, term ending 1/1/80 Ed Bissonette, 315 E. 36th (Contractor) Reappointment, term ending 1/1/80 R.K. Livingston, 431 E. 34th (Journeyman) Reappointment, term ending 1/1/80 Mechanical Board The following is a list of Council assignments: Community Schools Coordinating Committee: Scott Lieuallen Joint Parks Committee: Gretchen Miller Lesiglative Subcommittee: Brian Obie, Eric Haws, Betty Smith e 1/10/79--2 \2 L-COG: Emi 1 y Schue; " Alternate: Scott Li eua 11 en Metro Wastewater Management Commission: Betty Smith Metro Cable TV/Translator Commission: Bill Harne 1 Joint Housing Committee: Emi 1 y Schue Metro Area Transportation Committee: Gretchen Mill er Community Development Committee: Jack Delay LRAPA: Jack Delay, Bill Hamel Tri-Agency: Scott Lieuallen Mayor Keller distributed additional appointments to be considered at the January 17 meeting. ~ B. City Mana~er Intern--Manager introduced Elaine Stuart, CPSA graduate student, lntern in the City Manager's office. C. Meetings Announced-- I. Joint meeting of Metro Area Officials--Manager noten the ribbon- cutting ceremony at the Pound today at 4:30, followed by a social dinner at 6:30 p.m., Quigley's Restaurant. 2. League of Oregon Cities--Tentatively-scheduled legislative recep- tion Wednesday, January 31, 5:30 p.m., Salem. Mr. Obie nuted meetings of the Civic Center during that week, and hoped that any conflict could be avoided. In further discussion of coordinating meeting schedules to avoid conflicts, it was requested that staff pursue the possibility of one person keeping calendars of all meetings scheduled. Councilors may send their calendars of meetings to Councilor Coordinator in the City Manager's office. 3. p.m., Council Chambers, D. Metro Wastewater Management Appointment--The term of office of Pat Hocken expires February 1, 1982. . 1/10/79--3 13 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to recommend Pat Hocken be reappointed for a three-year term ending February 1, 1981. In response to a question from Mr. Haws regarding past policy of ~ appointment, Manager said members of the previous working study committee were appointed to the Commission traditionally by a motion approved by Council. Ms. Smith noted the Council did not go through the interview process for the prior appointment. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. E. Audit Report--Response to Councilor Delay's questions distributed. Manager reviewed the memorandum which responded to the audit firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. comments with regard to budget compliance. The first comment dealt with two items of expenditure in excess of the amount appropriated on a program basis. It was found the auditors made a transposition error in the supporting work sheets which were used. The second comment concerned the format of the City's pdopted budget in that it did not appear to comply with one of the fonnats outlined by the auditors. Manager noted the City had been. in compl i ance with the 1971 legislative local budget law to permit "program" budgeting according to an informal ruling of a representative at the State Revenue Department. He said there had been no substantial change in that law, and felt it was a matter of interpretation of the law in some respects. The City feels it was correct in its format, although ~ some adjustments might be made in adopting the budget ordinance in the future. He noted it was no major problem. The third comment was on the procedure used for a supplemental budget adopted May 10, 1978, by the City Council. The State Attorney General's office had offered an opinion April 10, 1978, which required the use of the Budget Committee in the supplemental budget adoption process. The opinion was not received by the City until May 15, 1978, five days after the Council had acted on the budget adopted May 10, 1978. However, Manager noted the City had since followed the procedures as outlined by the State Attorney General. The final comment had to do with the City's practice of treating the City's property tax levies for intersection paving as a serial levy, exempt from the constitutional six-percent limitation. The auditors indicated that should be counted within the six-percent limitation. However, Manager noted that an election had been held in 1926 and had authorized the City to levy that serial tax. This was part of the old City Charter. The City Attorney's office feels the new Charter does not repeal that authorization. Manager suggested that perhaps the City auditors should meet with the City Attorney's office for more clariflcation. . IIf 1/10/79--4 . Mr. Delay thanked the staff for the report and requested the auditors and City Attorney clarify the latter issue. IV. Council Balloting, Scheduling Interview Dates for Community Development Committee, Joint Housing Committee, and Planning Commission Ballots were cast by Council with the following results: Community Development Committee--Four finalists Greg Terranova, 3175 Potter William Dean, 340 Dartmore Drive Alan Garten, 119 N. Adams David Mandelblatt, 1766 Jefferson Joint Housing Committee--Five finalists Joan Gray, 1252 W. 12th Steven Wood, 971 W. 10th Raymond Duray, 910-1/2 Lincoln Charles Kennedy, 2706 Sorrel Way William Dean, 340 Dartmore Drive e Planning Commission--Three finalists Adrienne Lannom, 310 East 14th Richard Meigs, 4441 Fox Hollow Lodges, #1 Deirdre Malarkey, 1131 E. 20th Finalists will be interviewed Tuesday, January 23, starting at 5:00 p.m., in the McNutt Room. V. Routine Items for Council Approval A. Council Minutes December 11, 1978, and January 3, 1979 Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Council minutes as noted. Motion carried unanimously. B. Paying Bills and Claims Res. No. 3064--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period December 18, 1978, through January 8, 1979, was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll Call vote. Motion carried unanimously. C. Improvement Petition Res. No. 3065--Authorizing initiating process for street paving and sanitary sewer construction to serve 1st Addition to - 1/10/79--5 15 Oxbow Subdivision; and sanitary sewer construction to serve the area within 160 feet of the north boundary of 1st Addition to Oxbow; and storm sewer construction in Bonnie View Drive from 900 feet west of Sarah Street to existing drainage ditch approximately 100 feet east of Sarah Street was read by number and title. -- Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. o. Wrecker Licenses 1. Allstate Truck & Industrial Parks, Inc., 2750 Roosevelt Blvd. 2. First Farwest Transportation, Inc., dba Farwest Truck Center, 2200 West 6th Street Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend approval of wrecker licenses as noted. Motion carried unanimously. E. Churchill Neighborhood Charter Revision--Memo and map distributed Res. No. 3066--Withdrawing recognition of the Hawkins Highland Neighborhood organization was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 3067--Approving the merger of Hawkins Highlands Neighborhood organization with Churchill Neighborhood organization ~ was read by number and titl e. ~ Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. F. State-Mandated Five-Year Projects--Memo and projection distributed. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approved State-mandated five-year projection. Motion carried unanimously. G. Public Hearings Re: Street/Easement Vacations (maps attached; materials in separate packet) 1. Street vacation located on Jessen Drive, east of Beltline Road (Clarey)(SV 78-1) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission October 23, 1978. Jim Saul, Planner, was available to answer questions. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1812--Authorizing street vacation located on Jessen Drive, east of Beltline Road, and retaining 14-foot wide public utility 1/10/79--6 e Ib e easement (Clarey) (SV 78-1) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18319. 2. Street Vacation located on Lewis Avenue, east of Jackson Street (Safley) (SV 78-4) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission October 23, 1978. Jim Saul, Planner, was available to answer questions. C.B. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. 1813--Authorizing street vacation located on Lewis Avenue, east of Jackson Street, and retaining public utility easement over south half of vacated area (Safley) (SV 78-4) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. e Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by Council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18320. 3. Storm drainage easement vacation located between Royal Avenue and Bell Avenue, east of Fairfield Street (Sturdivant/Smittle)(EV 78-14) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission October 23, 1978. Jim Saul, Planner, was available to answer questions. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1814--Authorizing storm drainage easement vacation located between Royal Avenue and Bell Avenue, east of Fairfield Street (Sturdivant/Smittle)(EV 78-14) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. e 1/10/79--7 11 Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the ,., second time by council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18321. VI. Consideration of Systems Development Tax Amendments--Memo Distributed Manager said staff feels the proposed amendments are focused on serving the purposes of raising revenue to finance public facilities which are needed because of new developments other than through property taxes. The proposed exemptions also take into account and minimize conflicts with what appear to be actions for implementing important community objectives and policies. He then reviewed the amendments as proposed in the memorandum. Staff had recommended that Council exempt local government agencies, such as the City, school districts, Lane County, LCC, Metro Wastewater Management, from the full Systems Development Tax (SOT). It also was previously recommended that the Council be in a position to consider granting exemptions for reductions from the SOT for developments by other governmental agencies, such as Federal, State, University of Oregon, etc., when it is determined such reductions are in the best interest of the City. - Some concerns were raised at the November 22 discussion about the logic of granting full exemption to some non-City governmental agencies. Manager noted alternatives to that recommendation had been outlined in the memorandum. The alternatives included providing complete exemption from the SOT for agencies which are part of the City government, or created by the City government. This would include EWEB, Metropolitan Wastewater Management, and all City agencies. The logic of these exemp- tions is that a municipality usually does not tax itself. The creation of the MWMC involved very intense negotiations on distribution of funds and benefits among the three governmental agencies. The SOT would substantially alter those funding agreements. He noted the City may have to come up with 62-72 percent of such a charge because it would not be a federally- subsidized fee. In the case of exempting EWEB, which is a part of the City, Manager said it was more a matter of the City cooperating with EWEB in many business matters, such as determining who pays for various improve- ments, i.e., rights-of-way, relocation of water mains, etc. The alternative for exemption for other local government agencies, such as the school district, LeC, and the County, would be based on a percentage reduction for each agency equal to the percentage of the agency's total property tax revenue obtained within the City. He noted the interchange between the City and these groups in various ways, such as property exchanges, and lending facilities for use. He gave the example of the . 1/10/9--8 18 e School District 4-J having 70 percent tax aS$essment value within the city of Eugene; thus, the SOT would be reduced by 70 percent for the School District within the city. The exemptions could be beneficial also in encouraging State or Federal developments, perhaps in the downtown area. Regarding City-supported private developments, Manager said the amount of reduction would be equal to the amount of City financial support, up to a maximum of full exemption of the SDT. The City's financial support could be provided in a number of ways, including direct tax contribution, alloca- tion of grants from other agencies, land subsidy, etc. He noted this would affect such things as the Civic Center Project, hotel develop-ment, and urban renewal in the downtown area. It was felt levying the full SOT would be counter-prOductive because additional subsidies would then be needed. For small residential and commercial developments, staff was recommending small developments of $5,000 or less valuation be exempted from the SOT. A table showed the number of permits and tax revenue generated by develop- ments of $20,000 or less. Permits of $5,000 or less represented 27.4 percent of the permits, but produced only .9 percent of the revenue. The average tax collected per permit was less than $10, and the total annual revenue would be less than $10,000. He said the administrative cost was estimated at $30 for each permit, and was thus very counter-productive. Revenue for $5,000-$10,000 category was estimated at $49 for residential and $37 for commercial. Comparable estimates for $10-$20,000 category were $81 for residential and $29 for commercial. Thus, these categories appear to be more self-sustaining than $5,000 and under. - For existing gravel parking lot areas, staff was still recommending exemption of unpaved parking areas that existed before April 10, 1978, when the STD was approved. It was hoped this would encourage paving of the lots and thus improve air quality and reduce gravel tracking onto public sidewalks and streets. Mr. Delay suggested Council take the various recommendations in order. He said for the first one of exempting local agencies, there seemed to be two alternatives: Simply exempt all local governments with exemp- tions to other governmental agencies as needed; or allow exemptions as outlined in the alternatives listed in the memorandum (some local govern- ment agencies being exempt on the percentage basis). He felt the question concerned whether or not administrative costs in applying the formula outweighed the benefits. Manager said he did not think the admini- strative costs of applying the percentage formula would be that diffi- cult. Don Gilman, Assistant Director of Public Works, said he agreed the administration of the formula would not be that difficult. He said this alternative had been presented as a result of Council's previous concerns. Manager noted the question had been raised by Council as to whether the City was giving segments of unincorporated areas a "free ride" if total exemptions from the SOT were given, such as to Lane County. Mr. Haws felt if a percentage formula were used, that particular agency (i.e., School District 4-J) would levy the tax on all persons inside e 1/10/79--9 19 their district, which would mean City residents would be paying. Manager responded that with the proposed system, people outside the city would be included in the payment for a district-wide assessment. Manager said the theory of the percentage exemption was an attempt to make the tax as ~ equitable as possible. .., Ms. Smith supported the City of Eugene agencies being totally exempt, and was particularly in favor of exemption of the Metro Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). She questioned the amount of money the City would have to pay if the MWMC were not exempted. Ms. Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney's office, said the amount would be based on building costs. She said it certainly would be in excess of $100,000, and might even be up to $1,000,000. That money would have to be taken from the City sewer fund. Mr. Lieuallen felt to the extent that one of the other local governmental agencies is supported by the City, then it did not make sense they should .be taxed. On the other hand, to the extent they are not supported by taxpayers outside the City, he felt they should be taxed. Mr. Haws did not see the rationale for the separation of City of Eugene agencies and other local governmental agencies. He noted EWEB has some facilities in Eugene, but they service people outside Eugene. He ques- tioned how EWEB would be different than School District 4-J. Mayor Keller responded EWEB is an arm of the City, whereas School District 4-J is not. Mr. Haws noted there are EWEB users living outside the city who are making demands on city tax dollars. Manager responded those people pay additional charges. Mr. Delay was against complexity in government, and was in favor of adopting the least complex method for the SOT. He noted the percentage ~- formula would be extra work for staff and he did not think it necessary. Each individual case would be different, depending on the circumstances. Also, it would complicate the ongoing intergovernmental studies regarding tax equity with the other jurisdictions. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to accept staff's original recommendation for total exemption of City of Eugene agencies and other local government agencies, with exemptions or reductions for other governmental agencies (as outlined in paragraph 2 of memo dated January 5, 1979), on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Delay said the intent of his motion was to ask staff to prepare a policy based on the recommendation in the memorandum and prepare the ordinance provisions for a public hearing at a later date. He felt this would allow a flexibility for a case-by-case determination for the agencies, such as Federal, State, University of Oregon, etc. Mr. Obie questioned why the County should be exempt versus a company such as Northwest Bell. He said to not provide the same type of return to city residents that is provided for other developments is not responsible. He could only support City of Eugene agencies being exempted. 1/10/79--10 - 2.0 e Ms. Miller felt it reasonable to exempt the City of Eugene agencies. However, she said it seemed most of the SOT is an attempt to shift expenses of development to those who created the need for that develop- ment. In the instance of LCC and other agencies, including EWEB, who are causing the costs of devlopment, she said the taxpayers would still pay the costs of that development. However, it would be reflected in a different column. She said as far as the people in Eugene paying their percentage share of any given cost, she felt it would come back to them perhaps in a reduction in city taxes. She was sympathetic to the parti- cular problems of the MWMC. In the other cases, she felt it seemed to be more rational to provide the City with a mechanism for making exceptions, such as for the Metro Wastewater Management Commission. She did not support a blanket exemption. Flexibility could be provided for other governmental agencies and publicly-supported projects in the downtown area to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Schue was in favor of the motion. She felt it to be a more simple approach to the problem, and more equitable to the taxpayer. Mr. Haws urged the Council to vote against the motion because he felt it would tax the citizens of Eugene more. He felt it more important to get taxes from those who use the City's resources but who live outside the city. He said this policy would not help Eugene citizens. However, he did feel there might be cases for some exemptions, such as MWMC. He said a third alternative to the two outlined in the memorandum would be not to exempt anyone at all, except on various limited cases. e Mr. Delay was not convinced the City of Eugene would get less taxes because it is not yet known what consequences might result from exemptions or reduced exemptions. Other jurisdictions may set up percentage alloca- tions to obtain money from within the City. As far as adding to the demands for services, he felt governmental agencies were responding to real needs of people, i.e., schools, or a new jail. Third, in dealing with intergovernmental relations and tax equity, he said the City has been trying very hard to simplify that process by focusing on the major high- dollar items. He felt it would behoove the City to use a less complex approach to enhance governmental relations. Mr. Obie supported the exemption of Eugene agencies, but not a blanket exemption of local governmental agencies. Mayor Keller cautioned Council before it voted on any amendment that it thoroughly understand the issues. He felt the Council should look very closely at schools, MWMC, and weigh heavily what it is doing. He said excellent points had been made in the discussion. He questioned if total exemption were granted to the agencies as outlined, what dollar portion is represented by those deletions. Mr. Gilman responded building permits for public agencies is very erratic, with perhaps one year seeing much construction and another year very little. It was estimated a total resource revenue of $800,000 a year would be received through the SOT. Mr. Gilman said that in 1977, there were $78 million worth of construction costs, with $2.5 million of that being public agencies. e 1/10/79--11 21 Ms. Benjamin noted for Council that during the original discussion of adoption of the SOT, no one had considered applying the tax to local government agencies. None of the local government agencies felt it would be applied to them. Manager noted he had had calls from public juris- dictions, and had responded that a public hearing would be held on the proposed ordinance at which time those officials could make their wishes known. . Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with Councilors Smith, Lieuallen, Schue, and Delay voting aye; Councilors Haws, Miller, and Obie voting no. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the staff recommendation that City-supported developments receiving City financial support should be granted a reduction in the development tax. Manager said there had already been a couple of housing projects funded by City revenue sharing or grants. He noted the importance of retail expan- sion and hotel development in the downtown urban renewal area. He said the City would be providing parking and land which would provide a substan- tial "write-down" with the aid of federal money. These would be the .types of recommendations for exemption of the SOT, exempt up to the amount of the subsidy. He said the City would reduce the tax to the extent it felt the City would be subsidizing a development, which would be a measure of interest in the matter. He said it seemed impractical to subsidize a project, say for $5,000, and then have that much or more in Systems Development Tax. Mr. Obie preferred Council make the decision as to the extent the Systems Development Tax would be waived. Manager noted there would be relatively few of those instances. e Mr. Lieuallen felt it made sense to allow for possible exemptions up to the amount of the total subsidy. He felt the Council needed to establish that as a policy rather than waiting to consider on a case-by-case basis. He noted developers need to have information ahea~ of time in order to make their plans for development. He said it would be unfair to make developers wait on City Council decisions, as it would hold up their development plans. He suggested Council establish that policy through ordinance, and deal with other subsidies than the SOT Council might wish to grant at a later time. However, he said for the SOT, he felt the policy should be established by ordinance. Mayor Keller agreed. The Council had made a commitment to revitalize the downtown urban renewal area, and he felt it would be counter-productive to set another obstacle for developers and retail expansion in that area. Mr. Obie said perhaps it is time the City stop spending money trying to attract developers. He expressed concern about the definition of subsidy (based on what it cost the Renewal Agency or based on its value today) so staff would not get into arbitrary decisions. He wanted to keep the subjective decisions left for Council IS action. ~ 1/10/79--12 22 e In response to a question from Ms. Miller, Manager noted the subsidies in the urban renewal area are inherent in the Renewal Agency plan that is presented and reviewed by both the Planning. Commission and Council. Other subsidies do come about by direct request from the Joint Housing Committee and have to be acted upon by Council. Ms. Miller said it seemed that in the latter category, perhaps Council could consider the subsidy and SOT exemption at the time it considers those requests. Mr. Haws said he was not opposed to the concept, but was opposed to a blanket exemption for certain types of programs for certain areas of town. He did not like the way it was being done. In response to a question from Mayor Keller, Manager said a good example of a multi-subsidy was the housing project proposed for the Willagillespie area, wherein the Federal, Lane County, and City governments were all involved. Mr. Obie agreed with Ms. Miller's suggestion that Council consider the subsidies and SOT exemptions at the time of request on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Lieuallen thought that made sense on fairly specific cases, i.e., housing, but noted there may be others that are not so specific, i.e., retail or commerical requests. Mr. Obie thought commercial interests such as hotel developers would be very willing to come before Council to discuss the issue. - Manager said when the matter does come before Council, the Council should have criteria written into the Code for passing judgment. Assistant Manager said if Council is going to determine whether or not SDT exemp- tions should be applied or waived, it will have to set out criteria so those decisions do not appear to be subjective. Mr. Delay said Council needed to make a decision as to whether the staff was to bring back alternative suggestions for this to be an administrative procedure or Council decision on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Smith suggested Mr. Delay withdraw his motion, and have staff bring back alternatives and suggestions for a list of criteria. Mr. Delay, with consent of Ms. Smith, withdrew his motion. Mayor Keller requested that Charles Kupper, Director of HCC, be included in the discussion. Ms. Schue requested that staff deal with the defini- tion of subsidy. A short recess was taken. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt staff's recommen- dation that small residential and commercial developments of $5,000 or less valuation be exempted from the Systems Development Tax. Mr. Delay said it was obvious that in dealing with these small permits, the administrative costs far outweigh the revenue generated. He wondered - 1/10/79--13 23 , if an administrative procedure could be set up for adjusting the $5,000 figure so it would represent some reasonable cut-off point. Mayor Keller proposed the exemption be raised to $20,000. He noted 44 percent ~ of the permits generate only six percent of the revenue, and seemed 111' inequitable. Ms. Miller felt the $5,000 limit seemed reasonable. Mr. Haws asked what the exemption applien to~ Manager said remodeling, additions, and garages. Ms. Benjamin said it would include anything, even swimming pools. Mr. Haws philosophically opposed exempting luxuries such as swimming pools. Ms. Benjamin said the reason for making the recommendation, even exempting a swimming pool, was that the administra- tive costs would be more than revenue recaptured. Mr. Lieuallen requested staff respond to the suggestion of ralslng the exemption limit from $5,000 to $20,000. Mr. Gilman responded the logic for exemption up to $5,000 was that averaging out the administrative costs and handling permits, this seemed to be a logical cut off. At the $20,000 level, he said there is a substantial return on the permit, i.e., around $200. He said if the exemption were that high, there would be a possibility that builders might try to find ways to get around the process to stay under that dollar valuation. Mr. Lieuallen felt if the only reason for not raising the limit to $20,000 was to generate money for the bureaucracy, then perhaps that was an unsound rationale. Mr. Haws suggested Council take the conservative approach and use the $5,000 exemption at this time. If it wished, Council could later raise the limit. Ms. Schue noted a problem with that suggestion. People who are building now and paying the fee may feel the City has been unfair if later it exempts others from paying for the same amount. She ~ would like to see Council make a decision now and stay with that decision. .., Mr. Delay requested staff respond to the work load versus revenues question raised by Mr. Lieuallen. Staff will prepare chart for Council. Manager said staff hoped Council would act on the $5,000 exemption at this time. He noted the volume of permits drops off dramatically after the $5,000 level. Between the $10-20,000 valuation, the City would receive around $200 for permits. He felt that was certainly worth while for processing. Mr. Gilman noted the small valuation permit request is more difficult to process administratively than a higher permit such as a $50,000 new home. The new home fits more into a standard pattern, while the smaller requests are more complex. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the staff's recommendation for exemption of unpaved parking areas that existed before April 10, 1978, for a three-year period. 1/10/79--14 - m -".-- -- . e e - .- -...-" Mr. Delay said that the unpaveo lots were an unquantified source of particulate pollution. He felt Council was going to have take a multi- pronged approach to arldress thp. many problems of air quality and this would be one way to encourage people to help solve the particulate problem. Vote was taken on the motion, Which carried unanimously. VII. Status Report on Risk Management--Held to January 17, 1979 meeting Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to January 17, 1979. ~2n~ City Manager DT:pmjCM27b19 1/10/79--15 25