09/25/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

will continue. User fees for the library would keep patrons who most need and - use the service from it. An increase in property tax would increase the bur- den on the 50 percent of city residents who own their homes. Even a maximum gas tax would not fully fund the needed road improvements. A metropolitan gas tax has been considered for many years, but no action has been taken. Ms. Ehrman said a tax paid by all people who work in the city would broaden the base of contributors. She would support a commuter differential and free library cards for non-residents. She noted that an income tax is progres- sive. A low-income exclusion would respond to the needs of people with low incomes. She said an income tax will be a stable source of revenue and will minimize the administrative costs. It is the council IS best solution to the problem of a new revenue source. The proposed ordinance would authorize a maximum personal income tax of one-half of one percent. Only the voters could change the maximum. She is concerned about waste in government, future impacts on the operating budget, and the cost-effectiveness of the projects. She is also concerned that there is only a month to get information about the proposal to the voters. Ms. Ehrman is very concerned about replacing the Federal Revenue Sharing Funds that the City will lose. She emphasized that the CIP projects to be paid for by the income tax should be defined. Projects such as a new City office building are included in the CIP, and, because of that, some people testifying thought a new City office building would be constructed with income tax funds. If the income tax passes, she would like to see councilors and/or other citizens oversee the projects so they can tell the community what is e happening. There will have to be much community discussion about the library expansion. If the costs of the projects are reduced, she will try to have the income tax reduced. Stating that the CIP costs will continue, she said she will tell the voters the new revenue source should be permanent. Eugene cannot count on the State and Federal governments to help in the future. It comes down to asking the citizens of Eugene to invest in Eugene. Councilor Bascom said she is committed to asking the voters for a new revenue source on November 5. She is also committed to working with other councilors on the package. She emphasized that the city is clean and well run. Its services are good. She would like the spirit of support for the services to continue. She would like the campaign for the income tax to indicate that city services are good and a new revenue stream is needed to pay for them. Replying to questions, Mr. Wong said a ballot measure for a November 5th elec- tion must be filed by 5 p.m. October 2, 1985. Oregon Department of Revenue representatives indicated that the administrative costs of a commuter differ- ential would be horrendous. A rebate system for non-residents would be less expensive. He repeated Ms. Wooten's suggested package and said $3.8 to $4.2 million would be collected annually. It would be $1.8 to $2.2 million less than would be collected by a one-half of one percent income tax. Mr. Gleason said a .045 percent income tax with a 15 percent rebate to non- residents, a $7,500 annual exemption, and credits for annual incomes of $7,500 to $10,000 would fund the CIP at about $2.4 million annually. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 25, 1985 Page 4