Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Council Chamber <br /> Eugene, Oregon <br /> October 9,' 1972 <br />e The regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by <br /> His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30p.m. on October 9', 1972 'in the Council Chamber with <br /> the following councilmen present: Mr. Mohr, Mrs. Beal, Messrs. Teague, 'Williams, Hershner, and <br /> Mrs. Campbell. Councilmen McDonald and Bradshaw were absent. <br /> I - Public Hearings <br /> A. Downtown Development Board, Parking Prog~am <br /> Council Bill No. 95 - Requiring Information for Business-and-Occupa~ion Taxation was <br /> submi tted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being <br /> no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. <br /> I Downtown'Development Board has determined occupation taxis the most equitable <br /> method for raising a portion of the funds to pay for,a free parking program in the down- <br /> town area. Council was asked to consider adoption of this ordinance to allow collection <br /> of information about incomes of businesses within the district hounda~ies on which to <br /> base a business license fee. <br /> Bob Rubenstein, chairman of the Downtown Development Board, explained that ,'after explora- <br /> tion of several methods the Board was convinced the type of program proposed is the most <br /> equi tab~e way of paying for a free parking program. .All busi~esses within \~e Parking <br />. Di?trict will h.e required to submit a gross sale? report ,to tl:1.e fin,ance D~partment, <br /> after which the Downtown Development Board will ,recommend to the Council a taxation <br /> program to assist in .financing downtown projects, qne of which is free off-street parking. <br /> Herman Hendershott, attorney at. 172 .East 8th AVE;nue, expressed the opinion that the <br /> I proposed program will not achieve what is intended - bripging busi.nes,ses back to the <br /> downtown area. He questioned how many professional people were involved in the Develop- <br /> ment Board, saying their parking needs cannot be measured 'on' the basis of "gross sales." <br /> He objected to the proposed ordinance on the basis that it violates State law - it <br /> provides that information gathered under the terms of the ordinance shall not be dis- <br /> closed but State Jaw provides the opposite. He maint'ained to'o th'at th'eproposed ordi- <br /> nance violates the right to privacy and suggested the information desired might be ob- <br /> tainable froTl1 the State Tax Commission. As an alternative he suggested ,the Downtown <br /> Development Board meet. wi thmembers' of the" Lane County Bar Association and Lane County <br /> Medical Society to obtain the desired information on rencomes. <br /> Brooks Dickerman, manager of Pacific Northwest Bell, raised the question of reporting <br /> gross sales for interstate and intrastate business not measured locally. He said his <br /> company' does not keep'separate books"for' Eugene; gross sales locally are measurable <br /> under a different approach but would be costly to obtain. Another problem would be re- <br /> quirement of the Public Utility Commissioner that any charge beyond the 3% tax now paid <br />. be delineated on customers' bills. Mr. Dickerman said he was not objecting to the <br /> proposed program itself, only calling attention to problems in reporting his company's <br /> gross sales. <br /> Mr. Rubenstein pointed out that this ordinance does not in fact levy a tax, only re- <br /> quires information to be submitted on which to base a taxation program, and that the <br /> Development Board does have other than merchants in its'membership. He took exception <br /> to the suggestion that the merchants involved were self-seeking and said that free- <br /> parking program is reeded to allow the downtown area to compete with Valley River, 29th <br /> and Willamette Plaza, Oakway, etc. He noted that Portland has a similar ordinance <br /> after which this one is patterned a~d which has created no problems for that city. <br /> Councilman Williams commented on the ,apparent conflict between this ordinance and State <br /> law with rggard to confidential reports and asked for staff recommendation on that point. <br /> He suggested amending the proposed ordinance to provide for a $500 penalty (rather than <br /> $200 as shown) and automatic dismissa'l of any individual releasing confidential informa- <br /> tion, this in order to protect the privacy of those people submitting reports. He said <br /> if there E any question that this cannot be done, the ordinance should be held until <br /> the question is resolved. Manager said the present Room Tax'ordinance contains similar <br /> provisions 'andithe 'matter will be' reviewed with the 'City Attorney's office so there <br /> will be no question. <br />e On question. from ,Mrs. Beal, Mr. Hendershott.said he was representing a number of other <br /> attorneys having offices in the downtown' area. <br />~ <br /> In reference to Mr. Hendershott's statement that a new ,lease negotiated with his land- <br /> lord made no provision for.a proposed business license tax but does take into considera- <br /> tion the present OverparkDistrict assessment,'Manage~ said it is the intent to provide <br /> in any program adopted equalization between the proposed parking program and that of <br /> the Oyerpark Dis trict . <br /> "Z 93 10/9/72 - 1 <br />