09/25/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. mailing list to- recei ve - i.nform,itionabout it. She asked if- there are any -non- Eugene Downtown Association members on the Development Board. Mayor 4ndersop "noted the considerable coverage of the activities of the Board in the news media. This presentation, he said, is to hear the proposal and then to invite participa- tion by all members of the business community at the time of public hearing. . Mr. Rubenstein said that m?re than half of the firms in every category were re- presented at the Board meetings, and that a meeting is scheduled for this evening with people in the present overpark district~ He continued that the final program is so far in the future that there will be ample time for everyone to be heard. . Mayor Anderson suggested contact with the Traffic Engineer to obtain minutes of previous meetings of the Downtown Development Board. Traffic Engineer emphasized that the ordinance presented to the Council is only ~!? enable gathering of information for the Board to consider in terms of trying to develop a final program. Anything to be implemented will still have to come Dack to the Council for adoption. r In answer to Councilman Hershner about whether this discussion is on the merits of the proposed ordinance or whether to hold a public hearing, Mayor Anderson said the intent is to determine whether the proposed ordinance has sufficient merit to schedule a public hearing. Mr,. Mohr asked how much information is available in the Mass Transi t District records I with regard to finances raised in the business district that would apply to the park- ing program. Traffic Engineer answered that that tax is based on payroll rather thar. on gross sales. Assistant City Attorney Swanson said financial and real estate insti- . tutions by State law are exempt from business license fees, but Traffic Engineer stated that negotiations are in progress with financial institutions in an attempt to gain voluntary contributions to the program. Vince Farina, Board member, said they would be liable for the ad valorem tax even though they are exempt from license fee. John Sharp, Andrea's, asked if there would be a general mailing to all businesses I prior to the public hearing, and Mayor Anderson said that would be the responsibility of the people supporting adoption of the ordinance if they wished to do so, and not the City's responsibility. Comm 9/20/72 Mr. Teague m:Jved seconded by Mr. Mohr to schedule a public hearing on the proposed Approve ordinance for October 9, 1972. Motion carried unanimously. ,Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the budget submi tted by the Downtown Development Board be referred to staff for recommendation and report back with 'regard to feasibility of City's assuming cost of items covering police department I services (meter maid and scooter) and lost meter revenues. Motion car:ded unanimoui;-iy. F. Tax ~ate Increase - Mayor Anderson referred to the Register-Guard article on the Citry's tax rate of $9.18 for the year 1972-73, an increase from $8.79, the rate figured at time of budget preparation on the estimated valuation. He summarized . the procedure for figuring the budget, use of valuation estimates, reduction in , budget figures following election defeats, etc., and explained that the increased tax rate is due to a lesser actual valuation than expected at the time of preparing the budget. He suggested two alternatives - maintain the budget approved by the voters (expenditure of $2,175,000 outside the 6% limitation) with a tax rate of $9.18 per thousand TCV, or alter the budget, to maintain the $8.79 rate. Copies of a tabulation prepared by the Finance Director were distributed showing present levy and proposed levy to.maintain the $8.79 rate. Because of deadline for certify- ing the amount to be levied to the County Assessor it is necessary the Council de- ,termine what action is to be taken. Councilman Hershner asked if the Council has the authori ty to adjust the rate or if that is a Budget Committee function. Mayor Anderson replied that the C.ouncil may - ~ adjust it in any way it desires so long as it is not increased beyond the amount of levy authorized by the voters. Further discussion followed in clarification of how an adjustment could be effected. Councilman Mohr suggested a special meet- ing of the Council immediately following this cOnmUttee meeting to take whatever action is decided upon. He said the individual voter is concerned with the tax rate which he will pay, and is entitled to the rate presented by the City in asking for funds outside the 6% limitation. Finance Director confirmed Mr. Mohr's state- ment that a reduction of $295,328 gross ($265,795 net) is necessary to keep the -< tax rate of $8.79 based on the actual valuation. He also confirmed the statement that nO revenue sharing is taken into account in arri ving at these figures. '--' - . counf;i.~man Hershner wondered where services could be curtailed in view of the , funds"alx~adY deleted to give an operating bq<!get $300,000 less than what was. con- I sidereda minimum. Mayor.Anderson said time element prevents going through the budget before certifying the levy to the County, but a budget meeting could be ,2 88 9(25/72 "" lQ