Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

the tax did not pass. She confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Councilor Farr, that the cost of implementing the tax would come from the tax revenues. She further confirmed that a guaranteed rate did not ensure a guaranteed return. If the council chose a guaranteed return, there would be no certainty about the rate. Councilor Farr concluded that the City would have either a questionable rate or a questionable return. Ms. Cutsogeorge concurred. City Attorney Glenn Klein added that there would be no guaranteed return even if council chose that option. Staff would do its best to estimate the needed rate to bring in the desired amount, but the City could not guarantee that yield. He said the council could adjust the rate annually to get closer to the desired yield. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to adopt the resolution included as Attachment A, Option B, minus Section 8. Councilor Clark determined from Ms. Cutsogeorge that the OTI estimate took into account those parties that Eugene could not tax (17 percent), and the percentage associated with those who would not pay because they were PERS or federal government retirees (6 percent). The estimate also accounted for administrative costs. Councilor Clark suggested the tax should be based on amount rather than rate because the school districts were requesting specific amounts. He was concerned about under collection because of the State’s experience with ballot measures 66 and 67 and wanted to have accurate projections. Councilors Taylor and Brown accepted a friendly amendment from Councilor Ortiz to amend the motion to replace the phrase “teacher furlough days” with “instructional furlough days” in the resolution wherever it appeared. Councilor Ortiz moved to amend Section 4 of the resolution to include Junction City schools. The motion died for lack of a second. Responding to a question from Councilor Poling, Ms. Cutsogeorge said about 24 percents of 4J students and 12 percent of Bethel students lived outside the Eugene city limits. Councilor Poling said he had heard from many people who opposed the tax. He suggested the council was “rushing into this” and pointed out that Governor Kitzhaber did not believe the tax was a good idea at this time and suggested that passage of the tax might give the legislature the idea that local actions would take care of the school funding question. Councilor Poling also thought the proposed tax was unfair. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to schedule a work session on a November ballot measure as soon as possible after the State identifies the amount of State funds that 4J and Bethel school districts will receive. Mayor Piercy determined from City Attorney Klein that the motion was a motion to substitute for the previous motion. Councilor Poling suggested the motion would provide the council the time it needed to get more certainty about what the districts would receive from the State while emphasizing to the State it had responsibility for the issue of school funding. Councilor Clark said he was in favor of letting residents vote on a tax, but he wanted to offer them a tax with the greatest opportunity for success. He felt the proposed measure would not succeed because it was inherently unfair. He believed residents wanted a tax for schools to be fair, temporary, and progressive, MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2010 Page 9 Regular Meeting