Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling said the value-added charge was nothing but another tax and he did not support it as he regarded it as double taxation. It would cause an increase in costs of all development and infill, particularly with regard to housing, and those first-time buyers trying to buy a house were already priced out of the market. The fee was going to add to their costs. He pointed out the school districts were also opposed to the ordinance, as were many of the people he spoke to. He supported the motion and said if it did not pass he could not support anything but the original motion. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s comments, Mr. Pryor said he did not suppose to second-guess people’s intentions. He said that many people were concerned about how the fee would affect them. He said that the fee could cost School District 4J any where from $1 million to $1.5 million. He did not think the ordinance needed to be enacted now and said the council could wait and think about it. The council could always bring the ordinance back later. Mr. Kelly said the example of School District 4J had been brought up. The implication was that the City was taking a part of the district’s budget; but instead, it was proposing to take away any increase in value provided by a City action. It was a profit for the district at that point, and 75 percent of the remaining value was new money for the district to do good things with. The other 25 percent did not “send someone to Rio or pay someone’s salary.” He maintained it preserved the City’s ability to do land use planning, maintain the quality of life, and keep up the district’s property values. Mr. Kelly said that he received many e-mails that were generated from the same template that made mention of double taxation. He said that “double taxation” was a great sound bite but it had no policy meaning. He likened complaints made about Social Security in the 1930s with complaints about double taxation. He said the value-added tax was a tax for an entirely different purpose. Ms. Taylor maintained that the council had been thinking about the issue “for years” and it was time to act. She opposed the motion. Ms. Bettman suggested the transportation system maintenance fee was double-taxation given the existence of the property tax and gasoline tax, and yet people still expected their pot holes to be filled. Ms. Bettman said the fee was merely a percentage of the benefit the property owner received. The property owner would also have to pay capital gains taxes and no one called that double-taxation. She pointed out that the affected property owner would pay less in capital gains taxes because of the actions of the City, which reduced the revenues subject to that tax. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the school districts did not pay taxes. The districts would benefit from selling their properties but they had not contributed to the cost of the City’s land use regulations. She said the districts needed to contribute to those costs. She said the City could reduce property values when it took action, and the opposite of that was true. The vote on the substitute motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Papé voting yes, and Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting no; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to substitute the motion by moving to adopt the ordinance. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes, and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Papé voting no; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 9 Work Session