Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Pap~ about the cumulative effect of the formation of special <br />districts. She said that the result could be tax bills from five differing taxing entities that did not <br />exist before, with the cumulative effect being taxpayers were paying more for services than they <br />were before. She noted that her focus during the discussion of the issue at the council's goal- <br />setting session was on a revenue source to replace the property tax. Unless the formation of a <br />special district substituted for the property taxes that the City collected for the service previously <br />rather than resulting in an overall increase in taxes, she would not be supportive. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that the formation of a special service district to provide social services was <br />contemplated in the early 1990s and rejected in favor of the one percent formula, which was also <br />ultimately dropped. She thought that it was still an appropriate service to consider in the context <br />of a special district. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested that the Metro Plan created obstacles to the formation of special districts <br />to avoid the jurisdictional conflicts that could arise. She concluded that she was not enthusiastic <br />about pursuing the subject further. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson liked Mr. Kelly's suggestion that intergovernmental agreements could be a vehicle <br />for regional service delivery. She agreed with his remark that several councilors had different ideas <br />of what might be possible. She suggested that the council step back and discuss the purpose for <br />the agenda item. Was it scheduled because the council was interested in a particular service it <br />wished to improve and expand, because the City needed to do a better job, or because the citizens <br />wanted more? Was the City trying to increase revenues or decrease pressure on the General Fund <br />budget? Ms. Nathanson thought there was council interest in expanding and improving certain <br />services. If so, which services were of interest? She cited the library, youth services, parks, and <br />public safety as possible examples. Tax equity among those being served had been mentioned by <br />some councilors. She also asked if the City was trying to find a way to provide single services. <br />Regarding the suggestion that youth services could be provided through a special district, Ms. <br />Nathanson expressed concern that the result would be a program where youth participation <br />depended on the manner in which the service was funded. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey noted his appointment to a statewide committee charged to address the issue of <br />transportation funding in Oregon, adding that a part of the committee's charge included the need to <br />educate the State that there is a problem. He emphasized the need for public education regarding <br />"what it is that needs to be done that isn't being done that they haven't noticed needs to be done." <br />Mayor Torrey said that the council also needed to be concerned about the political viability of its <br />proposals, and not give the impression the council was trying to "sneak up on" the public and lay a <br />new tax on it. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly emphasized that the council was examining the tools available to it, which was necessary <br />to have a community conversation. He thought another motivation for the discussion was to find <br />taxing mechanisms that were permanent, as opposed to the library operating levy, which was <br />temporary funding for a service the public considered permanent. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2001 Page 13 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />