CC Minutes - 01/14/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Laue said that with the reduction of the anticipated revenue cut and the restoration of some programs, he did not perceive community demand for a revenue measure to replace lost services. He said that unless the council was willing to commit to go back again and again to the voters for a new revenue source, it risked the possibility of losing an election and not being able to seek new revenues for a long time, such as had occurred with the library. Mr. Laue noted his own opposition to an increase in property taxes and his support for a business receipts tax and personal income tax on high-income individuals. He stressed the need for consensus among the councilors about a tax source for a successful election, but did not think that the council would reach consensus in time for the May ballot. Mr. Laue said that his support for a new committee was not strong. He thought a committee would be good if it could generate support and increase community education, but he feared that would not be the outcome. Ms. Nathanson suggested it would be appropriate to separate the topics of the need for a committee and the timing of the revenue measure. Ms. Nathanson said that it appeared the committee was not saying it was too late for the May ballot, but rather too early for such a proposal. She thought people were largely aware of the tax burden shift, but she was unsure where that shift should be mitigated. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that Governor John Kitzhaber had recently convened a task force to discuss tax reform at the state level. She thought that process could have an effect on Eugene. Ms. Nathanson concurred with Mr. Meisner about the public's misperception of the fact the anticipated reduction was less than initially believed. The word "windfall" had been used by the press. Ms. Nathanson thought people were confused and did not understand that the result was a smaller budget cut. She said that the lag-time between the council's reduction decisions and their implementation had added to the confusion, although the council had been attempting to act prudently. If the council had implemented every change immediately, the link between Ballot Measure 50 and the City budget would have been obvious. Ms. Nathanson said that there was a lack of community consensus about a revenue source. However, she was unsure that a new committee would find consensus. Ms. Nathanson said that if a revenue measure included money to repair and upgrade parks equipment or facilities that currently place a demand on the General Fund, the council might free up some money in the General Fund. Ms. Swanson Gribskov did not support a May ballot measure. She though the council should allow the service reductions to be implemented because the community was not yet familiar with the new service system. The organization should prove to the community it can live within its means. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that any future ballot measure should look to a new vision of the future, as opposed to replacing what had existed. Mr. Lee agreed. Ms. Swanson Gribskov questioned whether there was an appropriate time to offer the voters a new measure given that 1998 was an election year and there would be new councilors who must MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 1998 Page 8 11:30 a.m.