Laserfiche WebLink
would need to be on people who work, not just live, in Eugene. She also wanted to reestablish the <br />balance of the tax burden on residential and commercial properties. Ms. Bettman perceived that <br />the tax burden had fallen disproportionately on residences, noting that the 41 percent figure cited <br />by Mr. Carlson did not include multiple-family housing. Another criterion she cited was that the <br />tax must be dedicated to a well-defined purpose. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman observed that the description of the amusement tax provided by staff mentioned <br />sporting events, but those were not mentioned in the potential annual yield. Mr. Johnson explained <br />that the University of Oregon would likely be the largest source of revenue for sporting events. <br />The City attempted to get legislation passed that would require the University to collect the tax on <br />behalf of the local government, but the legislation did not make it out of committee. He noted that <br />most such taxes exempt, for example, high school sports. Ms. Bettman asked if there was an <br />alternative to having the University collect the tax. Mr. Johnson did not think so, given that State <br />employees would be collecting the revenue. In response to a follow-up question from Ms. <br />Bettman, Mr. Johnson suggested that an in-lieu-of-tax would no longer be an admission tax. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that his constituents were not interested in paying more taxes. He was encouraged <br />that the council, as evinced by Mr. Kelly's comments, did not appear to want to increase the <br />revenues collected, but merely spread the tax burden to a larger group of people. He highlighted <br />the need for full citizen understanding of the scope of what the council was talking about. Mr. <br />Farr believed that it might be a negative thing for the City to move ahead on its own with another <br />taxing mechanism, suggesting it would be best to proceed in a regional or countywide fashion so <br />people could not avoid the tax by moving outside the city limits. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson reminded Mr. Farr that the City needed to replace the levies that were soon to expire, <br />and it would be the council's choice as to how the revenues were replaced. Mr. Farr agreed, but <br />said it did not appear the council needed a substantial increase in the City's revenues. Mr. Carlson <br />reminded the council that the six-year forecast generally anticipated a deficit in the General Fund <br />resources in out years, which meant the City had to either cut programs or generate new income. <br />Over the last three years, the council had asked the voters to support new operating levies through <br />the property tax. One of the options could be replacement of the levy dollars, but the City has an <br />ongoing structural problem with the system now in place. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr pointed out that through the implementation of strategies forced by Ballot Measure <br />47/50, the City had become much more efficient. He said that some did not believe the City had <br />done enough, and there was more to be done to become more efficient, and not just by cutting <br />programs but by operating programs more efficiently. While he was not prepared to go into detail, <br />he thought the City was spending money in areas that would be better spent elsewhere. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought the City needed money to restore programs that had been lost in the past. She <br />also thought the City needed a more equitable taxing system. Expressing appreciation for the <br />history provided by staff, she noted that often in the past there was a combination of items on a <br />ballot measure that, if presented separately, would have passed. She thought it best to go the <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />