02/24/1986 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e - e Ms. Schue said the subcommittee made some changes in a secondary list of priorities which the City will support with other organizations. The discussion of the list is reported in the second paragraph on page 3 of the minutes. She said counciiors might want to discuss the list at another time. Ms. Schue said subcommittee members did not agree on the fourth priority for immediate action which concerned Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). She said Congress proposed cuts in the program or elimination of it. The staff recommended the City attempt to have the program continued or, if it is eliminated, to have it phased out so that the City can adequately adjust to its elimination. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to approve the Legislative Subcommittee minutes of February 14, 1986. Mr. Holmer said he will vote to approve the minutes, but he would like to qualify that vote somewhat with observations about the minutes and the priority list. He said the priorities for Federal lobbying efforts were developed with the advise of the City's Executive Managers. The airport terminal expansion was the top priority, and the subcommittee members unanimously supported lobbying efforts for it. Mr. Holmer said the second item was called tax reform and included a suggestion that the City lobby to maintain the tax exempt status of municipal bonds. He and the other subcommittee members agreed with the proposal, but his agreement was qualified and, although the qualification was indicated in the minutes, he would like to emphasize it. He said municipal bonds have been used for private as well as public purposes. He said tax reform should address the abuses, but it should not penalize the use of municipal bonds for traditional municipal purposes. If that is not clearly understood to be City policy, the council should debate it. He said the same should be said about tax increment financing. If there are transition problems, the City should seek tax reforms that will facilitate the transition. He said the council should be more explicit about those than the subcommittee was. Mr. Holmer said all subcommittee members agreed that appropriations for the University of Oregon Science Building should be monitored. He emphasized that City representatives should lobby for things such as the airport and the University on which they can have an impact. He does not disagree about seeking authorized Federal funds for structures or programs. Mr. Holmer said the list of secondary priorities included industrial revenue bonds, urban development action grants, and the revival of revenue sharing. He said the subcommittee did not take a position on those items, but it recommended support for four less controversial items. He said the Executive Managers reportedly recommended that the subcommittee take no action on the industrial revenue bonds. Mr. Holmer said cities have the image of being monolithic opponents of a balanced Federal budget and meaningful tax reform. He would not like Eugene City Councilors to try to undermine overdue efforts to balance the national budget or reform the tax structure. He does not want City officials or hired MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 24, 1986 Page 5