CC Minutes - 01/11/11 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was adopted. City Attorney Klein recalled that the last time the City supported the school districts with a property tax levy the dollars were allocated to the 4J and Bethel districts based on the number of students they had residing inside the city limits. He said that the City was unable to limit the use of any resulting tax revenues to those students residing within the city. He said the council would have to make a similar policy choice for any new revenue. City Attorney Klein said the City Council had no power to tax parents living outside the district. Mr. Poling said many people had made references to short-term taxes, which reminded him of the council's conversation about the City's gas tax. He recalled that he suggested if the State increased the State gas tax the City should reduce its gas tax, and he intended to request a work session on that topic. He wanted any new tax to have a better built -in sunset mechanism than the City's gas tax had. Mr. Farr believed there were many questions needing to be resolved before the council acted. He said those speaking to the schools' needs were very passionate and if the State did not do something on a broader basis those arguments would be repeated by different parents in the future. He believed the situation made it more important to act now to pressure the State for a solution. He said the current taxing structure was not serving Oregon and needed to be fixed. Ms. Taylor was concerned about the idea of a committee as she feared it would delay action until it was too late to place something on the May ballot. Responding to a question from City Attorney Klein, Ms. Ortiz did not know if her motion presupposed a May ballot measure. She would need more discussion. She was not prepared to support anything at this time. She preferred to miss the May ballot rather than refer a measure to the voters that she could not support. Ms. Taylor agreed a long -term solution was needed, but a short-term solution was also necessary. She would not vote for a tax right now, but she would vote to let citizens vote. For that reason, it was difficult for her to support the motion. Mr. Clark thought the council needed more details before moving forward. He said new taxes often do not work out as they were intended to. He cited measures 66 and 67 as an example. He suggested that that a representative of the business community, such as a member of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce could participate in unintended consequences. Ms. Ortiz concurred. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that ballot measures 66 and 67 passed in Eugene. He had faith in the governor and thought he would come up with a good plan but questioned whether the legislature would act given that it had failed to solve the problem in many years. He thought it was prudent to come up with a local solution. If the State solved the problem, the tax could be ended. City Attorney Klein asked questions clarifying the nature of the committee to be formed and its membership. City Manager Ruiz indicated it would be difficult for staff to support the committee if all options were on the table, given the lack of time remaining before a decision must be made for a May ballot measure. Ms. Ortiz did not anticipate a long -drawn out process. She pointed out that four councilors had already indicated they would not support a restaurant tax. She suggested that only two meetings would be required given the work that had already been done. Mayor Piercy observed that she had only heard council support for an income tax. MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 11, 2010 Page 10 Regular Meeting