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

Home Browse Search

Mayor Piercy said a council decision for a ballot measure in May 2011 would have an immediate effect as the new revenues would be a bridge to the future. She emphasized the temporary nature of the tax being discussed. Mayor Piercy reported that some polling was underway to answer the questions raised by Mr. Poling. The results of that polling would be available soon. Mr. Farr said that there was clearly a chronic problem with education funding. He had served on the Bethel School Board during the Measure 5 reductions and it seemed that the City was still trying to fix those problems. Mr. Farr had not yet decided on the merits of a City measure but was willing to consider one only if the legislature developed a long -term funding solution for the schools. He emphasized the importance of a long -term statewide solution that avoided the need for ad hoc community solutions. He said that income taxes were unreliable and unpredictable at best. He supported further research into revenue mechanisms but wanted the council to have the ability to stop any taxing mechanism if the State found a funding solution before the sunset date. Mr. Clark did not want a short-term temporary solution to school funding. He wanted a long -term permanent solution. He did not want a new tax that hurt local businesses and did not solve the problem. He believed the governor meant what he said in regard to statewide changes in education. Mr. Clark thought that Eugene had the opportunity to create the best outcome in combination with the work the State did to create the best educational environment for the long -term. Mr. Clark said the council did not know what the funding shortage was or what the legislature would do, so he considered that it would be acting in haste if it placed a measure on the May ballot at this time. Ms. Ortiz indicated she did not support a restaurant tax. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to create an Education Subcommittee that would include representatives of the City of Eugene, the Bethel and 4J districts, and Stand for Children to return to the council with recommendations. Ms. Ortiz indicated she would prefer the district representatives be board members. Mr. Zelenka supported the motion. He was concerned about the timeline for the process. Measures 5 and 50 created problems for the education system that needed to be bridged with a local solution. He said the road preservation bond taught him that such a measure should be targeted, modest, and temporary. There needed to be a professional audit so people felt comfortable about it. He did not support a business or restaurant tax but supported a graduated income tax or charge on nonresidents that would yield $10 million to $15 million annually. He agreed that the City needed some polling on voters' responses. Mr. Brown did not expect any quick solutions from the State. He thought the council needed to refer something to the ballot. It could not impose such a tax by fiat. He hoped any referral was unanimous, and that the measure was on the next ballot. The measure could include a clause that canceled the ballot results if the State acted. He thought such a measure should be for $30 or $40 million for four years with a sunset clause. He thought that the committee proposed by Ms. Ortiz needed direction about the nature of the tax and its duration. Mr. Poling thanked Ms. Ortiz for her motion. He thought it was a great idea. He asked if the parents of students attending district schools who lived outside the city limits could be required to pay any tax that MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 11, 2010 Page 9 Regular Meeting