08/13/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Rutan accepted the amendment to the motion. Mr. MacDonald questioned the split's equitability. Ms. Ehrman indicated that she would not support the amendment or the motion as she believed the corporate income tax should raise more money than the personal income tax. While she accepted the argument that the citizens might not understand the equitabi1ity of the personal income tax, Ms. Ehrman believed the council should honor the survey results. Mr. Boles said he supported the amendment, suggesting that the issue was not one of equity of rates but an equitable balance in terms of revenue collected. Responding to Ms. Ehrman's remarks, Mr. Rutan agreed that corporate taxes receive higher levels of support due to the perception that some one else is paying them. In fact, typically the end user pays the tax. He expressed concern about the competitive disadvantage the tax could place on the communi- ty for those companies doing business on both a national and international basis. Mr. Rutan said that such taxes mean the costs of goods and services are directly impacted. The profitability of such corporations has a direct relationship to jobs in the community and, subsequently, the personal income tax. Mr. Nicholson maintained that the community would find his original proposal both equitable and efficient. He said that the amendment was inequitable, placed a disproportionate burden on one portion of the community, and would e put Eugene at a competitive disadvantage with other communities. The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3. Mr. Nicholson amended his motion to include the library in the services to be funded. Mr. Green seconded the amendment to the motion. Mr. MacDonald said he would oppose the amendment due to his belief that the capital costs should be funded through a general obligation bond. Mr. Miller agreed with Mr. MacDonald. He said that the City needed to find a means to leverage private community support for the cost of constructing the library. Mr. Nicholson said that his motion did not preclude establishing a challenge to the private sector for private dollars in support of the library. Mr. Boles and Mr. Rutan agreed. Responding to a comment from Mr. Miller, Mr. Nicholson reiterated that the motion represented a general principle, and the final cost of the library would be established after other sources of funds had been secured. Ms. Ehrman said she would oppose the amendment as it did not reflect the community sentiment expressed in the surveys. She believed that a tie between the library and the two selected taxes was unwise, and ignored the positive e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 13, 1992 Page 8 5:30 p.m.