CC Minutes - 04/09/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

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, noting 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 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 assessors 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 they were working closely with the State to see how they 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 projected would defer approximately $475,000 per year in tax revenue. She wondered why the County had not “gotten serious” about looking at collecting “the revenue that was due” to it. Mr. Stewart replied that if Ms. Bettman was referring to the zone in Oakridge, it had been in place for 11 years, no revenue had been generated, and therefore there had been no property tax reduction. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Stewart for his presentation. She remarked that it was difficult to consider the impacts of the budget on our future. She averred that people did not realize that organizations like the Buckley House had an impact on the community. She wondered if the Buckley House had any grant writing opportunities. She underscored that Buckley House was the only place an uninsured person with an alcohol or drug problem could go to. She predicted that citizens would notice its closure because the people it treated would be out on the street. Ms. Ortiz asked if the County had considered selling any excess properties. Mr. Stewart replied that such sales had been discussed at a low level by the Board. He underscored that it would not be prudent to sell an MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 8 Work Session