CC Minutes - 11/09/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

because prevention was cheaper than enforcement. Ms. Bettman thought the figure relevant, adding that she would be interested in knowing what the current split was, and how the new money changed that ratio. Mr. Kelly responded the $60 million fix of services had a higher percent of prevention services that the current mix. Mr. Johnson said the current amount was $6 million and $14 million for incarceration. He indicated he would respond to Ms. Bettman’s request. Ms. Bettman said she would be more supportive of a gross receipts tax than a sales tax, which touches rich and poor alike. The property tax reduction would go only to property owners, multiplying the regressive aspect of the sales tax. Ms. Taylor was concerned about the broad range of the services included in the proposal. She said that people like to choose what to vote for. Regarding prevention of services, she asked if anyone had examined the duplication of services provided by various agencies, as it was her perception that there was duplication. She was opposed to a sales tax and thought it a waste of time to place it on the ballot. She agreed with Ms. Bettman about the property tax reduction. Ms. Taylor said she thought a business license tax was preferable to the other taxes that had been considered. Mayor Piercy assured the council there was nothing set in stone at this point, and the City’s participation was purely advisory. Mr. Papé said the funding problem arose from a lack of revenues. While Lane County was one of the most populous counties in the state, it had one of the lowest revenue streams. He also commended the work of Commissioner Stewart. He said he would have loved to see a sales tax with exceptions for necessities instituted in Oregon years ago. He acknowledged the failure of other sales tax proposals but indicated he would support the one under consideration. Mr. Papé asked if there was any consideration by the County about contracting with the cities of Eugene and Springfield for services provided in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara and Glenwood. Mr. Johnson indicated that police services had not received much deliberation, adding that more discussion occurred about incarceration, treatment, and the potential of double taxation. Ms. Ortiz expressed her appreciation for the work of the task force. She had been unable to support the public safety district proposal but thought the County’s response to the City’s concerns was reasonable. Ms. Ortiz said she would support taking the proposal to a vote. Ms. Solomon asked about recent Board of County Commissioners decisions, time line, and the potential of placing more than one item on the ballot. In response, Mr. Johnson indicated that it would be possible to place more than one item on the ballot, but generally the measures got tied together and would require more than one campaign. Mr. Johnson said the Board of County Commissioners recently met to discuss the topic and the task force’s recommendations. The board discussion covered everything but the form of taxation and date of election. The board agreed to the suggested property tax reduction and basically concurred with the task force’s recommendations related to the service mix, although the board could add to the prevention and rural patrol services. The board would take up the funding issue again, and he thought it would give serious consideration to a business income tax similar to that used in Portland, as well as a personal income tax. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon about the nature of the ballot measure that would be offered to the voters, Mr. Johnson suggested the rate and purpose would be in the County Charter, which could only be MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 7 Work Session