Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Clark suggested if the situation was truly an emergency, the City had $7 million in reserves that it could use for the schools. He wanted to proceed intelligently because of the profound impact he thought such a tax could have on the community and for that reason preferred a later election date. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to change the ballot date in the motion from May 2011 to November 2011. Councilor Clark supported a November date because Governor Kitzhaber had indicated he intended to change the education system and the impact of that was not yet known. He pointed out that both districts had May bond measures and he was concerned that both measures would be doomed if they appeared on the same ballot as an income tax measure. He also feared that failure of the measure could jeopardize the council’s credibility. Councilor Farr shared Councilor Clark’s concerns regarding competition between measures. He asked Superintendent Colt Gill of the Bethel School District if the district intended to move forward with the bond measure it planned to place on the May 2011 ballot. Superintendent Gill indicated the Bethel District School Board of Directors had postponed that decision pending the council’s decision about the proposed income tax. Councilor Farr recalled his work as a State representative and agreed with Representative Barnhart that the State was not likely to act this year. Councilor Zelenka acknowledged Mr. Barofsky’s comments about the City’s own financial needs. However, he also believed the City could not wait for the State to fix the school funding problem. He wanted to place a measure on the May ballot and suggested the school districts’ bond measures and the income tax measure could create synergy for one another as they were all related to the future of the schools. He supported the motion. He asked staff to provide the council with the yield from a graduated tax that started at an income of $35,000. Councilor Poling observed that school funding had been an issue since 1993 and he did not consider the current funding shortfall to represent an emergency. He supported a strong school system but also believed school funding was a State responsibility. He expressed concern that passage of a local tax would take the burden of resolving the school funding problem off the legislature and cause it to further delay a solution. He favored a November 2011 ballot measure for reasons of timing and because of concerns about competing ballot measures. Councilor Poling asked if the tax would be a tax on money earned by people living inside Eugene or people working inside Eugene. City Attorney Klein clarified that those subject to the tax would be Eugene residents only. Councilor Poling preferred a flat tax paid by all. It concerned him that residents living outside the city limits would benefit from the tax but would not have to pay it. He was also concerned that the tax might discourage business investment or cause people to move out of the community. While Councilor Poling personally opposed such a tax, he represented his constituents, not his personal beliefs, and indicated he would support both the motion and the amendment because he thought such a tax was a decision to be made by the citizens of Eugene. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 24, 2010 Page 9 Regular Meeting