09/21/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e unanimous first choice preference for funding fire station construction to be the property tax with nine votes; the Business Income Tax was the second choice for Ms. Ehrman, and the Utility Tax was the second choice for Mr. Green, Mr. Boles, and Mr. Miller. There were no other funding preferences identified for fire station construction. The council ranked the funding sources to support the new library. Mr. Boles, Mr. MacDonald, and Mr. Nicholson ranked the Restaurant Tax as their first choice for library funding; Ms. Ehrman and Ms. Bascom selected the Utility Tax as their first choice; and Mr. Robinette and Mr. Rutan selected the Property Tax as their first choice for funding a new library. Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Bascom, and Mr. Robinette indicated that their second choice for funding was the Restaurant Tax; Mr. Rutan selected the Utility Tax as his second funding choice; and Mr. Boles, Mr. MacDonald, and Mr. Nicholson selected the property tax as their second choice for library funding. Ms. Ehrman ranked the Restaurant Tax as her third choice for library funding. The council discussed the advantages and disadvantages of whether to refer a funding source to the voters. Ms. Bascom spoke in favor of referring any selected funding source. She maintained that a referral would show the council to be "up-front" with the voters and in keeping with local tradition. Mr. Boles spoke in opposition to referral. He said the council had made a considerable investment in the Eugene Decisions process with the understanding e that the council was responsible for the final decision. Mr. Boles said if people were unhappy with the choice, the public could refer the issue. He said the issue then would be, "did the council make a wise choice," not, "do you like this tax?" Mr. Nicholson agreed with Mr. Boles but suggested that his decision regarding referral would be affected by unanimity on the council regarding the final choice. Mr. Green said he appreciated Ms. Bascom's point but did not favor referring the issue if the council decision was unanimous. Ms. Ehrman said she had appreciated the council's recent discussion with the legislators and their advice to go ahead without a vote. She said she distinguished between the core and the enhancements, and indicated she would be more likely to support referral of funding enhancements or selection of an unpopular revenue choice to the voters. Mr. Robinette said he agreed with previous remarks made by Mr. Rutan: any selected funding source will be referred to the voters with or without the council's assent. He said due to that inevitability and the negative votes that the funding source will receive if the council fails to refer the revenue, he supported referral. Mr. MacDonald said he agreed with Mr. Robinette. He said the council needed to control the date of referral to avoid conflict with State revenue measures. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 21, 1992 Page 6 5:30 p.m.