Laserfiche WebLink
corporate (business) income tax, gross receipts tax, and personal income tax. <br /> Further direct the City Manager to propose ideas of how these new revenues <br /> sources could partially offset some current property taxes. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr reminded all those present of past failed tax proposals, in particular the one percent utility <br />tax. He noted that tax had been intended to be dedicated to the provision of low-income housing, <br />which he considered a worthwhile cause. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor opposed the motion because the taxing mechanisms included had no precedence in <br />terms of local use, and no other Oregon jurisdiction levied such taxes. He did not want to be the <br />first community to impose such taxes. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman could not support the motion unless it included some of the other options mentioned <br />in the staff notes, such as an amusement admissions tax, a business license regulatory fee tax, and a <br />general sales tax. She asked Mr. Kelly to accept those taxes as a friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly <br />indicated acceptance of the general sales tax as a friendly amendment. He said he had been more <br />focused on broad taxing sources and had not intended to exclude the potential of using the other <br />taxing mechanism mentioned by Ms. Bettman for other purposes, such as replacement of the youth <br />levy. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman reiterated her interest in finding a way to levy a personal income tax on nonresidents. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner shared Ms. Bettman's concerns about the original motion but intended to support it <br />with the addition of the friendly amendment. Regarding a general sales tax, he noted that tax was <br />the only one that provided enough funding to replace a substantial portion of the property tax. A <br />one percent tax would generate $19.5 million in 2001. He reiterated his interest in something that <br />mitigated the impact of the property tax. He pointed out that those who use City services but do <br />not live in Eugene would be subject to the tax. He thought there were ways to address the <br />regressivity of the tax. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ did not oppose the motion but pointed out that he had been personally involved in the <br />support of three sales tax measures that were not supported by the public. He said that choosing <br />that avenue would require a broad, regional approach if it was to succeed. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr indicated his concurrence with Mr. Pap~, saying it would be unfair to local businesses that <br />other businesses just a few feet away would be able to sell goods for less because they were <br />located in a jurisdiction without a sales tax. He opposed the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor preferred the motion as stated originally. She thought a sales tax was a very regressive <br />tax. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that the sales tax provided an avenue for sharing the tax burden in a small way, <br />and emphasized he was only interested in the tax as a replacement to the property tax. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />