Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br /> e from those sources. <br /> Mr. Green asked Mr. Nicholson why his motion did not include the library. Mr. <br /> Nicholson said he was amenable to including the entire package in his motion. <br /> Mr. Mounts noted that the Department of Revenue had indicated administration <br /> of a corporate income tax would cost $300,000 to $350,000. At the rate <br /> suggested in the motion, a considerable percentage of the yield would be spent <br /> on administration. Mr. Boles suggested that the rate be adjusted to achieve <br /> the even split and capture administrative costs. <br /> Mr. Green endorsed inclusion of the library in the motion due to its impor- <br /> tance to the community. <br /> Mr. MacDonald supported inclusion of the library operations in the proposal, <br /> but suggested that the council fund library construction with a 20-year <br /> general obligation bond. He said that construction costs are capital projects <br /> that are generally supported by revenue bonding. That funding mechanism would <br /> allow the council to create a challenge for the community to come forward with <br /> private sector dollars. Mr. MacDonald said the public sector could provide <br /> the rest of the required funding with a mechanism that allows the leverage of <br /> private funds and terminates after the construction is complete. <br /> Mr. MacDonald suggested that the personal income tax had received little <br /> support in comparison to the corporate income tax because of the "tax somebody <br /> else" attitude reflected in the survey results. He said he would prefer to <br /> e establish a balance in rates between the two revenue sources. <br /> Mr. Nicholson said his motion would exclude the $300,000 required to fund the <br /> Convention and Visitors Bureau. <br /> Mr. Boles indicated his opposition to the motion as stated, adding he would <br /> support the motion if it established an equal split in revenue yield from the <br /> corporate and personal income tax. <br /> Mr. Rutan said that the proposal met the standards of adequate yield, effi- <br /> ciency, progressivity, and equity. In addition, there is a precedent for both <br /> taxes inside and outside Oregon. He endorsed the direction the proposal <br /> reflected. <br /> Mr. Miller said his philosophy of general purpose taxes for general purpose <br /> government was embodied in the proposal. However, he referred the council to <br /> the chart, which he maintained showed low support for a personal income tax <br /> and indicated that people preferred a mix of funding sources. He questioned <br /> whether two taxes constituted a mix. <br /> Mr. Robinette moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to amend the motion <br /> to balance the revenue yield equally between the personal and <br /> corporate income taxes. <br /> e <br /> MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 13, 1992 Page 7 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br />