08/13/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e input received for other tax sources. The amendment to the motion failed, 4:5 (Mr. Miller casting the tie-breaking vote). Mr. MacDonald moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to amend the motion by funding the library's operational costs with the proposed combination of personal and corporate income taxes. Mr. Boles indicated his opposition to the amendment due to the council's policy to avoid commitment to capital projects without assurance regarding adequate funding for both capital construction costs and operations and maintenance. He did not believe it made sense to separate the operational costs from the construction costs. Ms. Bascom suggested that the council could mount a successful campaign around building construction with the use of the revenue sources previously discussed and private sector dollars. Mr. Boles said he was not interested in mounting such a campaign but rather in coming to a decision following the IS-month Eugene Decisions process. He added that the council should not continue to cast each decision as though it intended to refer the issue to the voters, but rather discuss the merits of the arguments with respect to financing of services. He did not think the council action would discourage private fund-raising. e The motion failed, 5:3. The council voted on the main motion. The motion failed, 5:3. The councilors briefly discussed the rationale for their votes in favor of and in opposition to the motion. Mr. Green, who supported the motion, indicated he wanted to fund the entire shortfall and enhancement package with the proposed mix of revenues. Mr. Rutan said he voted in favor of the motion and supported Mr. Green's position. Ms. Ehrman said that the inclusion of the personal income tax did not keep faith with the public's desires and lessened the council's credibility. Mr. Nicholson said that the council needed to keep in mind the public re- sponse. However, he believed the council needed to consider other data as well. He termed the tax equitable and efficient. Mr. MacDonald said he opposed the motion as he was not convinced of the merit of dividing the revenue yield between the two sources. Additionally, Mr. MacDonald urged the council to consider the probability that the State Legislature would work on a bridge financing mechanism that could include a e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 13, 1992 Page 9 5:30 p.m.