Agenda Packet 7-22-19 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session June 10, 2019 Page 2 and paying for the enormous amount of security needs in 2021 and asked if any community safety money will be going towards this; asked about security in relation to potential terrorism; shared concerns about having a vote in seven years and what would happen if funding went from $23 million to $0; asked to see more of a breakdown about the proposed budget; expressed desire for more education in the community. •Councilor Evans – talked about a personal experience with inadequate police responseand how calls are not being responded to even when there are dangerous situations;said there has been a chronic state of underfunding and under supporting criminaljustice and public safety system for years and the bill has come due; expressed wantingto better protect the safety of the public and noted this plan includes police, fire, thecourt system, etc. •Councilor Clark – said most agree that this money is needed to protect the community,but disagree on the mechanism; expressed concern about dealing with issues inisolation without connecting the dots with other decisions being made at the table; saidthat he does not think the funding options were studied thoroughly and there are otheroptions to consider; expressed support for sending the proposal to the voters. •Councilor Syrett – said that testimony submitted has been confusing and it’s been hardto sift through all of it; talked about previous conversations about the gaps in the systemand how this money will help provide a number of public services the community hasasked for. •Councilor Zelenka – said that public safety services have been underfunded for decadesand this proposal is the right package of services; expressed confidence in staff toimplement this plan and to make sure it’s done effectively; said he preferred the payrolltax compared to other potential funding options because those using the public safetysystem will be paying for it; supported exempting people who make less than $15 anhour; conveyed his struggle with the decision to send to voters or not. •Councilor Pryor – talked about City Council’s role in studying issues, understanding thecomplex relationship between them and considering all elements in decision-making;supported the amendments as a reflection of thoughtful perspective about the proposal;expressed position that this proposal allows the City not to sacrifice priorities in onearea for the sake of another. •Councilor Yeh – mentioned that in reading emails to City Council, it stood out thatpeople were confused about this tax proposal and making wrong assumptions; said thatthis process has highlighted a communication problem and how much better informedthe community could have been in order to provide more relevant feedback; expressedconcerns about the seven-year vote and asked Chief Skinner for his opinion. •Councilor Semple – voiced concern about very low-income people and asked forscenarios for different rates based on wages, including if minimum wage were at 0. •Mayor Vinis – cautioned the councilors that when elements of the proposed formula areshifted, it shifts the other rates, affecting others at the top and undermining publicsupport. •Councilor Zelenka – acknowledged that sending the proposal to the voters is risky, but itwould be up to City Council to make sure voters can make informed decisions; said thatthis proposal is large enough and significant enough to be put out to the voters; voicedconcerns about trying to interpret what voters mean if they vote for or against a charteramendment; supported outreach efforts to communicate that the need is very clear andgetting the system in shape comes with a price tag. July 22, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A