Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

back to the County. Mr. Stewart responded that he believed the money did come back to the County through different programs but he was not certain of the amount. He said citizens had brought this before the board as a suggestion and a “colleague or two” of his had some interest in the item. Mr. Zelenka asked for a clarification on why, historically, the property tax rate in Lane County was low and why it could not be increased. Mr. Stewart confirmed that Lane County assessed taxes at a rate of $1.28 per $1,000 assessed value of real property while the majority of counties in Oregon assessed a rate of $3 to $4.50 per $1,000 assessed value. He explained that when Lane County could have increased its property tax rate it did not do so because no one had foreseen the drop in the timber economy and then Ballot Measures 47 and 50 had locked the rate at that level and made it so the only way it could be changed was through a vote. Mr. Zelenka asked how many counties there were in Oregon. Mr. Stewart replied that there were 36; Lane County was among the poorest, with only Curry and Josephine counties below it. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for Mr. Stewart’s lobbying efforts at the State and federal levels to restore the funds. She observed that the federal revenue measure was for $47 million and asked if $7 million of it was dedicated for schools. Mr. Stewart responded that this was approximately correct, and noted that there was a little more funding because of Title 2 and Title 3 money that paid for the jail, though the Forest Work Camp was not included. He said in looking at what Lane County benefited from, it amounted to approximately $51 million and there would be approximately a $7 million loss to local schools. Ms. Bettman had heard that the FY 08-09 budget for the County would be cut by $83 million and asked why this amount was different from the $47 million loss in federal money. Mr. Stewart explained that the federal money was utilized to leverage matching funds in the DHHS. He stated that the County was only cutting the General Fund portion of Health and Human Services by approximately $3 million, but that money leveraged approximately $26 million. Ms. Bettman asserted that there were areas of revenue available to the County that the County was not receiving at the State level. She asked how the County felt about lobbying to remove the prohibition on recovering Systems Development Charges (SDCs) on public safety. Mr. Stewart responded that he had not personally engaged in a conversation about SDCs for public safety. He knew that the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC), and specifically the 16 affected counties, were working hard to address the funding issues. He related that there was a task force convened by the Governor that was looking for revenue opportunities. He said the assessor’s organization had looked at how the County could increase money coming from the State through property tax interest rates and how more money could be leveraged to offset the cost of property tax collection in Eugene and Lane County. He underscored that the County was working closely with the State to see how it could lobby in the future to make up the difference. Ms. Bettman averred that the County had the ability to charge SDCs for transportation and parks but was not doing so. Mr. Stewart replied that the County was collecting SDCs for parks in rural Lane County. He said staff was working on transportation SDCs. Ms. Bettman asked how much revenue the County annually deferred for urban renewal districts, Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemptions (MUPTEs), and Enterprise Zones. Mr. Stewart responded that he did not know what that amount would be. Ms. Bettman declared that when she “did the research” for the urban renewal measure she had concluded that the County would lose $3 million per year. She noted that it had endorsed an Enterprise Zone that she MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 7 Work Session