Laserfiche WebLink
reverse of what it had been previously. She thought a gross receipts tax would more equitably distribute the <br />tax burden between the two groups. She favored the income tax surcharge because it could potentially also <br />include nonresidents using City services. Ms. Bettman favored offsetting the property tax with the receipts of <br />those taxes. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly reminded the council of the gross receipts tax the City previously collected to pay for parking <br />downtown. He agreed with Ms. Bettman about the need for striking a better balance between business and <br />individual taxation. The City Club recommended an individual income tax surcharge and gross receipts tax. <br />He suggested the council research the rationale behind that recommendation. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that the individual income tax addressed many nonincorporated businesses as well as <br />individuals. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly reiterated his goals and said that if restructuring was so important, he was willing to give up the <br />third goal (leaving restructuring property tax and replacing current levies) with the time line for a 2003 <br />implementation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to develop and <br /> bring back for City Council consideration options for using proceeds from any <br /> nonproperty revenue source to offset some portion of the property tax burden and to <br /> roll in operating levies with the goal of adoption in 2003. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart indicated he could not support the motion because of his concerns about the impact of a new tax on <br />Eugene residents. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly understood Mr. Fart's reluctance to study the subject but suggested not to do so was to say the <br />property tax mechanism was acceptable as is. He did not think any councilor believed that. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ also shared Mr. Fart's concern and said the council needed to start with the voters and get some <br />education started so it was not "polling the citizens in a void." If some favored approach "bubbled to the <br />surface," the council could proceed from there. If nothing bubbled to the surface, he suggested the council was <br />wasting its time. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the motion and asked if it adequately conveyed to the manager the intent of the <br />council. Mr. Carlson noted that the motion said nothing regarding the mechanism for a nonproperty revenue <br />source, only its intended use. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if staff would continue to work on the topic using the direction it had gained through the <br />discussion. Mr. Johnson said yes. Ms. Bettman suggested that the council owed it to the voters to narrow the <br />options, and through that process would increase citizen awareness. The motion was not committing the <br />council to anything specific; it merely endorsed an alternative to the property tax and the investigation of other <br />options. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor did not support the motion because he was seeking a more defined approach. <br />Ms. Nathanson said she also would vote against the motion and support the staff recommendation to table the <br />issue. She said that she did not think it was a good idea to provide information about revenue options to the <br />voters when the council had not made the case for the need. Ms. Nathanson said the community was largely <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 2001 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />