CC Minutes - 05/26/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap~ asked why the committee opposed House Bill 3304. Tim Black, City Manager's Office, said that the police department indicated the bill would create additional administrative duties and there was insufficient staff to handle the vehicles that would be impounded as a result of the bill. Mr. Meisner noted that bill would mandate forfeitures. Ms. Nathanson added there was a question of fairness to the family of the person forfeiting the vehicle and no information about where the money involved would go. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to amend the motion by removing House Bill 3304 for reconsideration by staff and committee. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4.Work Session: Council Goals Two-Year Action Plans Mr. Torrey noted that staff was seeking clarification on the level of effort desired for implementation of three council action priorities identified by the council on April 21, 1999: 1) continue implementation of community policing; 2) outreach to communities of color and disadvantaged; and 3) authorize/appoint charter review commission. To place the council's conversation regarding community policing in some context, Mr. Torrey said that the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) was considering a new revenue source and was doing in-depth research about the desires of County residents. The PSCC would not make a firm decision until the results of that research were known. If the City Council wanted to raise money for community policing, it would need to determine when it wished to ask the voters to support the program. He said that the only time the City was likely to be able to place such a measure was in November 1999, given the requirement for a double majority for a property tax measure and the likelihood other ballot measures would generate interest in the election. Mr. Torrey said that he had encouraged the PSCC to consider placing its measure on the September ballot, which would allow the City to place its measure on the November ballot. Otherwise, he said, the City would have to wait until November 2000. Mr. Torrey said that the County was concerned about the size and timing of any City ballot measure related to policing. Mr. Torrey believed that the community would require any PSCC levy to include a substantial level of funding for prevention programming; he did not think the City's partners shared their belief. At the request of Mr. Torrey, Mr. Johnson provided an update on the most recent discussions of the Public Safety Coordinating Council regarding revenue options. He reviewed the recommendations of the PSCC's Financing Subcommittee, which included a revenue-sharing proposal with all units of local government in Lane County. He said that the PSCC had discussed the recommendation and agreed it wished to do more research. A subcommittee of the PSCC had put together a survey and the survey was now in progress. The survey was intended to test whether voters believed a surcharge on corporate and personal income taxes was a good way of financing public safety and related services. Mr. Johnson said that four focus groups would be convened after the survey was done, so at the end of that process the elected officials should know more about what residents favored. Mr. Meisner asked if the PSCC subcommittee was discussing an income tax surcharge applicable to all tax payers. Mr. Johnson said that the subcommittee did not get to that level of detail. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m.