10/09/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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