Laserfiche WebLink
acceptable. He said momentum was building for another parks and open space bond measure, and he did not <br />want to jeopardize that. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson concurred with the remarks of Mr. Meisner. She thought she could support a motion with <br />narrow parameters about what should be studied. She questioned what a survey would tell the council if, at the <br />same time, it planned an extensive campaign about transportation needs and funding. She questioned if the <br />voters would support both or either. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked what was needed for the youth operating levy. Mr. Johnson said approximately $1.7 <br />annually. Ms. Nathanson recalled that the council asked staff to begin working on a more comprehensive, <br />collaborative solution with the other government agencies, and asked the results of that. Mr. Johnson <br />reminded the council of the report it recently heard regarding special districts, which offered a variety of <br />options. He noted that Willamalane and River Road Parks and Recreation districts were deeply involved in the <br />City's planning with the nonprofits for youth services. The City was working on an urban transition contract <br />renewal with River Road Parks and Recreation District. Ms. Nathanson said it did not appear there was a <br />general discussion among the CEOs about a general revenue source. Mr. Johnson concurred. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said constituents asked her on occasion why there was no sales tax. She suggested that times <br />had changed, and wondered what the answer would be if the property tax were partially offset and certain <br />items exempted from the tax, such as food and over-the-counter drugs. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson indicated she did not want to adopt a tax that required the City to set up an administration <br />system. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr suggested the citizens were not interested in new, imaginative forms of taxation. He questioned if <br />there was a chance a new tax could move forward, expressing the concern that the council's discussions and <br />efforts could turn out to be an exercise in futility. He said that the only way he would be interested in more <br />work on the topic was if a new tax was used as a total offset against property taxes. Mr. Farr said that people <br />did not want another layer of taxes. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey wanted to know specifically how the money raised by a new tax would be used. He wanted to <br />know what the projected General Fund revenue shortfall equated to in terms of services, with the services <br />prioritized. He anticipated that staff would be providing the council with some information to review over the <br />recess related to that question. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey was opposed to a gross receipts tax. He said that the City could tax a company's revenue even <br />while it was losing money. If it wanted economic development, the council should not be putting up <br />roadblocks. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Rayor's comments about a business tax. He said that the <br />owner of a small professional business had indicated to him he would move to Springfield if the City of <br />Eugene implemented such a tax. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the council was having the discussion because of the council goal of Fair, Stable, and <br />Adequate Financial Resources, and a sincere desire on the part of the council to restructure the taxing system. <br />She thought the downside of a sales tax was that it would be local, and the burden and cost of administering it <br />out of proportion to the benefit. Ms. Bettman favored a gross receipts tax and income tax surcharge because <br />since the 1970s the tax burden had shifted to the individual and away from business on a 60/40 basis, a <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />