Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Pryor agreed with Representative Barnhart that the State was unlikely to act in a timely way. <br />However, he also agreed with the concerns voiced by Mr. Barofsky. He said that there were many <br />questions remaining to be answered about the issue of school funding and he questioned whether the <br />council could answer them in a deliberate matter before taking action on February 14. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor concurred with Councilor Poling that the funding problem had been in place for some <br />time and he also questioned the need to place the measure on the May ballot. He believed that the <br />November ballot was more realistic in light of all the unanswered questions. He wanted to hear more <br />details about the proposed tax and did not want to be rushed. He emphasized his long-time support and <br />work for the schools and said he wanted any action the council took to be careful, thoughtful, and <br />deliberative so the resulting tax would succeed. <br /> <br />Councilor Brown agreed the threshold for the tax should be lower and pointed out that many people who <br />did not make $50,000 annually had offered to share in the responsibility of funding the schools. He also <br />agreed that the State would not act in time to help and might actually provide less funding than was <br />anticipated. He agreed there were many unknowns about the tax but thought the council would sufficient <br />information to act on February 14. He believed the measure needed to be on the May ballot or there <br />would be 100 fewer teachers and fewer instruction days next year. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Councilor Farr about the retroactivity of the tax, City Attorney Klein <br />indicated that a tax passed in either May or November could be retroactive to January 1, 2011. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy thought all people involved in the discussion understood the timing was not perfect and all <br />would have preferred more time. She concurred that a November ballot date would not avoid the <br />reductions that the districts were contemplating, and for that reason supported placing the measure on the <br />May ballot. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark asked that staff contact Tim Duey of the University of Oregon or another suitable <br />economist to give the council better information about the impacts of the tax on the local economy. He <br />also wanted to know if the City could take any action that affected the residents of Coburg, who sent their <br />children to 4J schools but would not be subject to the tax. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark asked if PERS retirees were exempted from the tax. Ms. Cutsogeorge said yes. There <br />was a State preemption against local income taxes being applied to PERS benefits. She did not know the <br />financial impact of that preemption. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka asked staff to work with staff of the two districts to analyze the fiscal impact of the <br />two different election dates. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor observed that there were many unanswered questions, including whether the City could <br />even collect the tax before January 2012 if it passed. He supported a May ballot date at this time but <br />would not commit to that date if the council’s questions were not answered by February 14. <br /> <br />Councilor Farr asked if the districts could issue tax anticipation notes. School District 4J Chief Financial <br />Officer Susan Fahy said yes. <br /> <br />Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to call the question. Roll call <br />vote: The motion to call the question passed, 6:2; councilors Zelenka and Farr voting no. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 24, 2010 Page 10 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />