09/22/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e the community with Strategy C, he wanted more analysis about it in order to be able to accurately describe how it would appear. He was not willing to move toward that strategy if a revenue measure is defeated, although he agreed that the organization might end in that position. Mr. Nicholson clarified that he was referring to Strategy C was a means to address the short-term following a defeat at the polls. Mr. Boles said he supported a council effort that made the best attempt to meet the process goal. He said Mr. Green's proposal provided the community with an opportunity to decide what kind of community it wanted to be. 12. Fund the core, the library, and fire redeployment through a five percent restaurant tax with a 15- to 20-year sunset, to be referred to the voters. (Boles) Responding to a question from Mr. Miller, City Attorney Bill Gary said there was no reason the council could not institute a sunset through the charter. To continue a tax would require a vote. Mr. Miller said that the public did not view all City services to be of equal value. He said he was uncomfortable with a focus on the core due to his concerns about other services such as community policing. Mr. Rutan stressed the condition of the budget, saying that the City was out of money. The council could only achieve acceptance from the community regarding its decisions if it can demonstrate financial responsibility. He e warned that seeking more money than necessary to fund the "bare bones basic" program would result in failure. Ms. Bascom opposed the idea of offering a rate cap through the charter or a sunset provision as a "carrot" to the voters. Mr. MacDonald agreed with Mr. Rutan, adding that the community needs time to see the results of the cuts that the council has agreed upon. He said that further, he was not prepared to turn to a Strategy C if the public rejects a revenue measure. Mr. MacDonald said he wanted to exhaust all options possible to avoid Strategy C. Ms. Ehrman suggested that the council consider establishing a restaurant tax with an authorized 2.5 percent rate and five percent cap, and stipulate through the charter that the rate can only be raised to address other service needs by an affirmative vote of the public. Ms. Ehrman added that the experience of the Eugene Agenda had shown that a link between the tax and the proposed expenditure was immaterial to the public. 13. Fund the core through a 2.5 percent restaurant tax, with subsequent "implementation" votes authorizing an increase in the rate for each approved enhancement to a cap of five percent, with referral of the concept to the voters and no sunset. (Ehrman) e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 22, 1992 Page 4 5:30 p.m.