CC Minutes - 09/26/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

before the voters. She was concerned about how the money was dedicated and how the task force could guarantee the money continued to remain dedicated to the proposed expenditure. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the work done by Mayor Piercy and Mr. Kelly. He did not think their time had been wasted. He said the proposal resembled past public district proposals because it included a combination of enforcement, prevention, operations, and capital. He agreed with Ms. Bettman, saying that attempting to blend capital expenditures and operational expenditures together was confusing. He recommended that the capital elements of the proposal be deleted. That would also have the purpose of reducing the amount to something more palatable. Mr. Pryor agreed that property tax proposals were problematic and said income tax proposals did not fare much better. He acknowledged that he perplexed by the funding element component. He said that a sales tax would work but might not be supported. He suggested the task force test all the funding elements with the public through a focus group process. Mr. Papé said he participated in two statewide campaigns for a sales tax and noted Ontario’s attempt to pass a sales tax. He suggested that a local sales tax focused on public safety services was a possibility. Ms. Taylor said she would only consider the income tax. She thought the list should be pared down to those things that constituted services to the public. She thought people would vote to support the prosecution of crimes, and said more parole officers were needed. She said the list resembled what the County asked people to vote for before, and was unsuccessful. She did not think the new proposal would pass. Ms. Ortiz also supported the use of the income tax. She determined from Mayor Piercy that the list represented the “kid’s meal” approach to funding as opposed to the “deluxe meal” approach. Ms. Ortiz asked what percentage of revenues would be generated from outside and inside the cities. Mr. Kelly said it depended on the revenue source, but he estimated that because Eugene constituted 40 percent of the County population, it was likely to pay 40 percent of the cost. Ms. Solomon appreciated the package and said she would like to see it passed. She was more inclined to support a local income tax rather than a sales tax as she believed that a statewide sales tax was fairer to local businesses. She pointed out that those who could avoid the tax by leaving the community to shop would do so. Mayor Piercy said the public safety funding gap was a big problem, and it greatly affected Eugene as the largest city in the county. She said the package before the council had been pared down considerably in comparison to what was initially presented to the task force. Mayor Piercy said she received many calls from people upset that the system could not address those with mental health problems. Mr. Pryor said he was very supportive of the services being proposed and the people they served. He said with a list so large, there was always something for a voter not to like. He asked what could be done to make the package desirable and acceptable to the voting public. Mr. Kelly said the task force believed the measure might differ from previous measures if it had the support of all Lane County elected officials. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the council’s remarks on the inclusion of capital improvements in the package, but pointed out those costs constituted only $1 million of the total. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 11 Work Session