03/14/1984 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - Mr. Ball did not favor Mr. Holmer's proposal to put the operation of the Hult Center in the general fund, since the Hult Center was not readily available to the general taxpayer. Councilors concurred that consideration of the Hult Center funding needed to be included in their future deliberations. Councilors agreed that there was a shortfall. Mr. Holmer sai d the only "gap" was for "infrastructure maintenance". That commitment is the only justifi- cation for added taxes. Mr. Obie saw a shortfall on the capital side of the budget, but did not know what it was. On the operating side, he said they needed to review it carefully and look at the add-backs. He favored the Hu1t Center being part of the City. He favored keying in on improving the capital side. Mr. Keller said he was convinced there would be a shortfall, but did not see an agreement on the degree. He favored using all of the room tax and not going to the general fund for the Hult Center. He did not favor a restaurant tax. Mr. Ball told why he favored the restaurant tax. He favored having revenue sharing funds put back into the capital fund. Mr. Obie expressed appreciation for Mr. Burkett and staff coming to the meeting. He favored helping Springfield with its problem. He would also go along with a three-cent Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax just to reduce property tax. He urged strong cooperation. Mr. Hansen favored sending a revenue source to the voters. He suggested a payroll/wage tax as a way to reduce property tax. He was concerned about co11 ections. Mr. Gl eason summari zed that all had agreed there was a II gap" and wanted more information and detail. Councilors wanted to look at the buybacks and all the assumptions. There were questions about the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax. Four councilors were in favor; others had questions. The City Council was willing to talk. They favored aiming funds at the capital side of the budget. They would like details on how it will work. They would like details on gross receipts tax versus sales tax; a utility tax, a wage tax, and a tax package, such as the Eugene Plan, should also be considered. One issue not resolved was the property tax limitation measure. Mr. Burkett thanked the council for letting him come. He said Springfield did not get a tax base approved in 1980. They had deficits for the last two years and have to do something. Springfield needs new revenues. They strongly support the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax and have to implement it with Eugene. They have to look at it for the next fiscal year. (Recorded by Beth Conant) BC:ky/CM8b20 MINUTES--Eugene Council Work Session March 14, 1984 Page 4