Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Zelenka asked that ordinance be amended to include a provision that the sunset would not be <br />removed from the ordinance without a public vote. He also asked the City Attorney to examine the sunset <br />clause to ensure that it was four years and there was no ambiguity about the time period involved. He <br />acknowledged that the council's actions could not bind future councils. <br />Councilor Zelenka believed that mandatory withholding was a good idea. <br />Councilor Clark emphasized that the ordinance before the council was not a charter amendment. It was <br />an ordinance that could be amended or changed at any time by any council at any time no matter. City <br />Attorney Klein concurred. A future council could change any part of the ordinance even if it had a sunset <br />ordinance that attempted to preclude that action. <br />Councilor Zelenka wanted to make it as politically difficult as possible for a future council to change the <br />ordinance and thought his suggested revision would accomplish that. <br />Councilor Ortiz acknowledged the council could not bind the actions of future councils. While she would <br />have preferred the tax be in place for a longer time period to better solve the school funding problem, <br />Councilor Ortiz was comfortable with the ordinance as drafted. <br />Mayor Piercy acknowledged that the proposed ballot measure would not fix the school funding problem. <br />The ordinance was an attempt to mitigate local reductions while the State worked through the funding <br />issue. She supported both the ordinance and the State's efforts. <br />City Attorney Klein indicated he would prepare amendments to the ordinance reflecting the input of <br />councilors Clark and Zelenka, and asked that requests for additional changes be provided to him before <br />the council took action. <br />Councilor Farr recalled his past service on the council and noted that many of that council's actions had <br />been changed. <br />5. ACTION: <br />Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions and Action on Non - Unanimous IGR Actions from <br />March 16, 2011 <br />Intergovernmental Relations Director Brenda Wilson was present for the item. The council discussed the <br />bills that had not received unanimous support from the Council Committee on Intergovernmental <br />Relations (CCIGR). Ms. Wilson noted the first bill of concern, Senate Bill 845, had died and would not <br />receive further consideration by the State legislature. <br />House Bill 3167 <br />Ms. Wilson reviewed the bill, which would eliminate the discount for partial or full payment of property <br />taxes on or before November 15. She said had the bill already been in place, the City would have <br />received an additional $2.5 million in property taxes in fiscal year 2010. She reported that City staff had <br />recommended that the City take a Priority 1, Support position on the bill, and a committee majority <br />instead took a Priority 3, Oppose position on the bill. <br />Councilors asked questions clarifying the details of the bill. <br />MINUTES — Eugene City Council April 11, 2011 Page 7 <br />Regular Meeting <br />