My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2011
>
CC Agenda - 05/23/11 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2011 2:23:13 PM
Creation date
5/20/2011 1:26:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/23/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />ATTACHMENT C <br />M I N U T E S <br /> <br />Eugene City Council <br />McNutt Room—City Hall <br />777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon <br /> <br />April 27, 2011 <br />Noon <br /> <br />COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, <br />Chris Pryor, Alan Zelenka, Pat Farr. <br /> <br />Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the April 27, 2011, work session of the Eugene City Council to <br />order. <br /> <br />A. ACTION: <br />Adoption of an Ordinance Concerning a Four-Year Income Tax for Schools; Adding <br />Sections 2.2000 to 2.2038 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing a Sunset Date <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to adopt Council Bill 5046 regarding a four- <br />year income tax for schools, adding sections 2.2000 to 2.2038 to the Eugene Code, 1971; <br />and providing a sunset date. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend Section 2.0026 by adding the <br />following sentence: “However, nothing in the rules may require an employer to withhold <br />wages for this income tax.” <br /> <br />Mr. Clark indicated his intent in offering the motion was to ensure that an employer could, but was not <br />required, to withhold wages for the income tax. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz determined from Finance Director Sue Cutsogeorge that staff was in discussions with the City <br />of Portland about the potential that agency would administer the tax. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka noted criticism that the City did not know the cost of administering the tax, which he did not <br />think was true. He asked Ms. Cutsogeorge if she was aware of anything that made her question the City’s <br />original cost estimates. Ms. Cutsogeorge said no. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy indicated the proponents of the tax were informed by the City of Portland the cost to <br />administer the tax could be five percent of the amount collected. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that figure was <br />based on the experience of Multnomah County, and Eugene’s experience may be different. She added <br />that in addition to those costs, there would be other activities Eugene staff would undertake to administer <br />the tax. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Brown about whether Multnomah County required employer <br />withholding, Ms. Cutsogeorge said Multnomah County, the City of Portland, and the benefitting schools <br />had to withhold, and other withholding was optional. There were few Multnomah County employers who <br />chose to withhold the tax. Mr. Brown did not think withholding would be a burden for most employers <br />given the function was routine and computerized. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2011 Page 1 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.