04/22/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Ms. Bascom would like to make the package presented to the voters broad enough to pass. The addition of the library to the Eugene Agenda would help pass the package, she said. Mr. Rutan favored including the Eugene Agenda, Federal Revenue Sharing, and a portion of the Capital Improvement Program in the package. He said the library and swimming pool would help "sell" the package. Mr. Holmer said the $2.8 million for the Capital Improvement Program is the most important item, the replacement of the Federal revenue sharing funds is the next-most important item, and the Eugene Agenda is the third-most impor- tant item. He would fund the library and a swimming pool with property tax funds and submit the issue to the voters separately. He emphasized that the City is not maintaining its existing infrastructure. He felt the voters would reject the package if everything was submitted at once. Mr. Hansen agreed with Mr. Holmer. He said the Federal Revenue Sharing funds must be replaced and capital investments must be maintained. He will abstain from voting on the revitalization of the downtown. He thought the library and the swimming pool shou1 d "stand on their own feet. II Ms. Ehrman agreed with Mr. Holmer. She said Federal Revenue Sharing funds must be replaced and the Capital Improvement Program must be funded. She favored presenting the projects in the Eugene Agenda, the library expansion, and a swimming pool to the voters and letting them choose which projects will be funded. e Ms. Schue would like to fund the library and the swimming pool with a separate bond issue, and fund the Eugene Agenda conservatively, replace the Federal Revenue Sharing funds, and maintain the Capital Improvement Program. She would negotiate about the income tax. She said it is difficult to make a decision about funding Eugene projects before the result of the State sales tax referendum is known because the sales tax matters very much to the average voter. Mr. Hansen voiced frustration at the inability of the City to levy a sales tax. Mr. Gleason emphasized the importance of timing in the creation of a new income stream. He suggested the staff prepare a recommendation for the coun- cil about timeframes for the presentation of the swimming pool, the library, and projects in the Eugene Agenda to the voters. The councilors briefly dis- cussed when a vote on a new income stream could be put on the ballot. Councilors agreed to meet on May 20, 1985, to discuss the staff proposal for timeframes, a definite amount for a new income stream, and what income/payroll tax would be needed. Ms. Ehrman reiterated that she would like only one tax. Mr. Hansen would like to know who would be affected by an income tax and who would be affected by an employee payroll tax. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session April 22, 1985 Page 5