09/21/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Utility Tax Mr. Rutan noted that the packet contained a letter dated September 18, 1992, from Susan Smith of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). Mr. Rutan reviewed the attributes for the utility tax in the matrix. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles regarding the availability of informa- tion about the low-income exemption program, Mr. Mounts said staff had initial information about the number of households in the community that would qualify, but had not estimated the monthly utility costs for those households or the potential revenue loss. A preliminary estimate for the electric utility tax indicated an approximate $40,000 loss if all eligible households took advantage of the exemption. Mr. Rutan noted that the estimates in the matrix were based on projected post- Trojan figures. Ms. Ehrman asked if the committee had considered conservation efforts in its projections. Mr. Rutan said no. In response to a request from Mr. MacDonald for more information regarding the effect of the Trojan closing on in-lieu-of-tax revenue, Mr. Gleason said that the current compensation received by the General Fund for the municipal electrical utility is not an in-lieu of tax, but rather a payment of earned surplus mandated by State statute. Mr. Gleason said that the result of e decommissioning Trojan will be governed by that statute. Ms. Bascom asked for more information about potential legal issues. Mr. Rutan referred Ms. Bascom to the letter from Susan Smith and said that the City Attorney is researching the issues raised by EWEB. Ms. Bascom indicated she had heard public concerns about the need for EWEB as a public utility to downsize operations and cut wages and benefits in a manner similar to the City and County and suggested that the City enter into discus- sions with EWEB about those issues in order to offset the effect of the proposed utility tax. Mr. Miller pointed out that EWEB was governed by an independent board and suggested that the dialogue suggested by Ms. Bascom should more appropriately take place between the utility and the ratepayers. Mr. Gleason anticipated that the board would respond by saying that tax policy for general purpose government was the responsibility of the City rather than the utility. Ms. Bascom said councilors had been approached by board members regarding issues of shared concern and suggested those approaches were efforts to have a dialogue about how the two bodies can work together for the communi- ty welfare. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 21, 1992 Page 4 5:30 p.m.