CC Minutes - 12/11/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

existing and potential Ballot Measure 37 claims and what he believed to be the community’s desire to continue to do land use planning, to not continue the discussion. Ms. Bettman was glad that Ms. Solomon offered her substitute motion because she thought it very revealing. She said some people who called for delay did not support Ballot Measure 37 and had good intentions, while others calling for delay supported Ballot Measure 37 and just wanted to kill the ordinance and any jurisdictions’ ability to do anything but waive regulations. She considered the motion “an honest example of what some people’s motivations are.” She intended to vote down the substitute motion and amend the Mayor’s motion. Mr. Papé said that some of the personalities that had slowed progress on the implementation of Ballot Measure 37 were not going to be around for the next legislative session, and he wanted to give the legislature one more chance to address the issues. Mr. Poling said the value-added charge was nothing but another tax and he did not support it as he regarded it as double taxation. It would cause an increase in costs of all development and infill, particularly with regard to housing, and those first-time buyers trying to buy a house were already priced out of the market. The fee was going to add to their costs. He pointed out the school districts were also opposed to the ordinance, as were many of the people he spoke to. He supported the motion and said if it did not pass he could not support anything but the original motion. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s comments, Mr. Pryor said he did not suppose to second-guess people’s intentions. He said that many people were concerned about how the fee would affect them. He said that the fee could cost School District 4J any where from $1 million to $1.5 million. He did not think the ordinance needed to be enacted now and said the council could wait and think about it. The council could always bring the ordinance back later. Mr. Kelly said the example of School District 4J had been brought up. The implication was that the City was taking a part of the district’s budget; but instead, it was proposing to take away any increase in value provided by a City action. It was a profit for the district at that point, and 75 percent of the remaining value was new money for the district to do good things with. The other 25 percent did not “send someone to Rio or pay someone’s salary.” He maintained it preserved the City’s ability to do land use planning, maintain the quality of life, and keep up the district’s property values. Mr. Kelly said that he received many e-mails that were generated from the same template that made mention of double taxation. He said that “double taxation” was a great sound bite but it had no policy meaning. He likened complaints made about Social Security in the 1930s with complaints about double taxation. He said the value-added tax was a tax for an entirely different purpose. Ms. Taylor maintained that the council had been thinking about the issue “for years” and it was time to act. She opposed the motion. Ms. Bettman suggested the transportation system maintenance fee was double-taxation given the existence of the property tax and gasoline tax, and yet people still expected their pot holes to be filled. Ms. Bettman said the fee was merely a percentage of the benefit the property owner received. The property owner would also have to pay capital gains taxes and no one called that double-taxation. She pointed out MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 9 Work Session