CC Minutes - 06/30/99 JEO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Schriver noted that Springfield and the outlying rural group liked the fact that it could be tailored individually to the unique needs of the outlying areas. He noted they would favor a renewable measure rather than an ongoing measure as they had doubts as to how the money would be used. He said the focus group within the City of Eugene was willing to consider some of the values of an ongoing tax. He noted that participants said they would support an income tax surcharge. He said they were asked what they would be willing to pay and the willingness went from $500 to just a "yes". He noted in a focus group setting, people always tend to overstate the positive. He said that both proposed measures should stress community safety. SAFER COMMUNITIES DRAFT REPORT Maine reiterated that they reviewed the levy component to make sure they were still viable in terms of the PSCC and whether the numbers were correct. She added they commissioned the finance committee to investigate alternatives and then tested whether the alternatives and levy components were valid in the community. She added they then took the original proposal out of the finance committee and revised it into a document that is before the group entitled "Safer Communities." She noted that under the charter amendment there are three purposes: for expanding and improving countywide community safety services; (the levy component) to enable cities in unincorporated Lane County to expand their community safety programs (the revenue sharing piece) and maintaining county community safety programs (to keep the declining timber revenue receipts from eroding the existing level of services). Maine declared the proposed charter amendment should have a sunset clause. She noted that normally income tax measures are an ongoing revenue not identified for programs, and they chose to modify it by sunsetting in an 8 to 10 year period. She noted the programs would be spelled out and the implementing ordinance features would specify a requirement regarding expected outcomes. She added it would provide for an independent evaluation of the results and would guarantee positive results within the smaller communities as well as countywide. She said the implementing ordinance will require submittal of annual proposals from each city up to their maximum entitlement, based on their population formula. She added the method of allocation had yet to be determined. She said revenue sharing money is at the city's discretion to spend on community safety proposals, but there would be oversight to make sure that it is legitimate and within the context of the larger, public safety issue. She noted that ultimately the city or county would have responsibility for the use of the surcharge revenues but there would be oversight to protect public trust in the process. She said it is a proposal. She wanted consensus, concerns and suggestions for going forward. Betty Taylor, City of Eugene, asked Tollenaar why there would be maximum rates on the income tax and no exemption for people with low income. Tollenaar responded if a person is of low income, they would not be paying much, if any income tax and it accounts for differences in personal income and the same would apply to businesses. He noted Page 6 -- Lane County Joint Elected Officials Meeting -- June 30, 1999 WP bclm1990751M