CC Minutes - 02/14/11 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

but in this case, the tax would not be borne by many people whose children attended schools. He thought that was at odds with the City's attempts to work with the residents of Santa Clara/River Road to transition those areas into the city. He did not think they would want to annex and be assessed a new tax. Councilor Clark pointed out that Coburg citizens, whose children attended 4J schools, would not pay the tax. He believed that would generate opposition and believed that opposition could be better overcome if the City waited until November. He also was concerned about the fate of the districts' bonds. Councilor Zelenka said there was no perfect tax. He favored a May ballot because of the superintendents' remarks in support, because a November date pushed out the date collections could start, and because a November election would cost the City $290,000. In addition, there was a motivated group of people willing to work on the measure now. There were no resolutions to the issues Councilor Clark raised that would make a difference in November because he thought those issue could not be resolved. He did not support the motion. Councilor Pryor suggested that it would be too late to act when the community knew how much the State would allocate to schools. He supported a smaller amount of $16.8 million because he thought it would be easier to pass. He did not want to presume any tax the City passed would make the districts whole because the City could not do that. However, he wanted to give the voters a chance to vote in May because of the superintendents' remarks. Councilor Pryor asked School District 4J Board of Directors Chair Craig Smith if he preferred a May ballot. Mr. Smith said yes, because it would allow the district to have an impact on the 2011 -12 school years. Councilor Farr also favored the November ballot. He was concerned that the districts' capital bonds would not pass if the income tax measure appeared on the same ballot. He said he had always voted yes on measures related to the schools in his role as a Bethel School Board member, and his vote on the topic was not a vote in support of children in schools. He thought the November ballot gave the measure a better chance of passing. .Councilor Brown believed that November would not work. He said the measure was intended to retain teachers and add back lost school instruction days. If the council waited until November that opportunity would be lost and there would be no point. He believed that the measure had to be on the May ballot. If the measure was on the May ballot, the districts would have more certainty about the funding they could expect. Roll call vote; the substitute motion failed, 5:3; councilors Poling, Clark, and Farr voting yes. The council discussed how to fill out Section 2 of the resolution: Section 2. The tax shall consist of a graduated tax of. (a) % if income tax is less than $ ; (b) % if income is between $ and $ ; and (c) % if income is more than $ and shall be collected annually on income earned between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016 Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to amend the motion by amending Section 2 as follows: Section 2: The tax shall consist of a flat tax of 1.42% on taxpayers with OTI in excess of $25, 000 and shall be collected annually on income earned between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016. MINUTES— Eugene City Council February 14, 2010 Page 10 Regular Meeting