Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> e taxes in the form of a tax base increase or a serial tax levy; and 4) relying <br /> on a dedicated revenue source such as the utility tax under consideration. <br /> Mr. Mounts said the utility tax would be based on the consumption of <br /> electric, steam, water, telephone (excluding out-of-state long-distance), <br /> sewer, natural gas, and cable television utilities. The tax would be paid by <br /> all the consumers of those utilities within the city limits. It was <br /> estimated that a one-percent utility tax would raise $800,000 annually. The <br /> committee recommended that revenue in excess of that needed for library <br /> operations should be dedicated to branch libraries in the future. <br /> The average home owner would see an approximate $13.00 per year increase <br /> through this tax. For property tax to produce the same amount of revenue, <br /> the average impact on home owners would be approximately $19.00 per year on a <br /> $60,000 home. <br /> Carol Hildebrand, Library staff, responded to the often-asked question, "Why <br /> not remodel and expand the present library facility?" The Future of Our <br /> Library Committee (Future Committee) commissioned an architectural study of <br /> the present building which revealed that structural engineering of the <br /> present top floor is such that book weight cannot be supported, nor is an <br /> additional floor possible. Asbestos in the building should be removed and <br /> there are plumbing and wiring deficiencies. Were an expanded library to be <br /> located at the present site, additional land would have to be purchased for <br /> parking. Consequently, the Future Committee recommended a new library and <br /> its first choice location would be at Broadway and Charnel ton streets. In <br /> e its discussion of a possible mixed-use project, the committee developed <br /> several criteria for the library space: it should have a separate entrance <br /> and identity, be designed with the input of users and library staff, have <br /> control of its own interior, be constructed so the buildingls other uses do <br /> not disrupt the operation of the library (noises, smells), not inhibit free <br /> speech activities, and have ground floor access. Ms. Hildebrand concluded <br /> that the proposal being considered offers the necessary space and functions. <br /> Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. Because of the large number of <br /> requests to speak, he asked that members of the public limit their testimony <br /> to two minutes each. <br /> Jean Reeder, 500 East 4th Avenue, spoke as the general manager of EWEB <br /> regarding the proposed utility consumption tax. She reported that customer <br /> comments on EWEB bills indicated that 11 percent favor the library, 85 <br /> percent oppose the utility tax, and 4 percent made other comments. She <br /> presented these comments to the council for its review. <br /> Ms. Reeder said EWEBls in-lieu-of-tax payment to the City of Eugene currently <br /> is $6.2 million. She anticipated further growth of those payments and <br /> suggested that the ongoing costs of the library could be paid out of these <br /> additional payments. <br /> Ms. Reeder listed three legal concerns with the proposed utility tax. First, <br /> she questioned whether EWEB has the authority to impose and collect the tax. <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 19, 1988 Page 3 <br />