Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Cariaga suggested the multi-year financial plan addressed Ms. Ortiz’s questions by identifying unfunded needs. Ten of the unfunded needs were highlighted as priorities to inform the council’s discussion. Mr. Farr wanted to be able to clearly articulate to constituents where the City spent its money so he could explain the costs and tradeoffs involved. Mr. Barofsky believed the City needed to address the condition of non-General Funds such as the Ambulance Transport Fund. He also suggested that political feasibility had led the task force to rule some funding options out, although they might be appropriate for the need. He thought each service had different political and funding strategies attached, and believed the public would be willing to support ambulance transport through a service district or some other creative funding mechanism. Ms. Tate noted the role that the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption played in the construction of housing near and in downtown, and pointed out that after the abatement period, such developments contributed significantly to the tax base. She said that such public investments eventually did get paid back. City Manager Ruiz then asked meeting participants to list their worst and best outcomes for the discussion on 3” x 5” cards. Those present then shared their best and worst outcomes with the rest of the group. Staff collected the cards at the conclusion of the exercise. City Manager Ruiz called for a brief break. Ms. Tate left during the break. Ms. Cariaga provided background on the Meeting the Challenge Task Force, which had been formed in 2009 to discuss a major new revenue source to fund general services. The task force discussed a restaurant tax, a utility fee or monthly fee for service, and a personal income tax. The latter idea was discarded because Ballot Measure 66 was on the ballot at the same time. She asked task force participants to comment on the work of the task force. Ms. Cariaga noted that other members of the task force included Merle Bottge, Jared Mason-Gere, Gretchen Pierce, Michael Redding, and David Tam. Mr. Gaydos expressed appreciation for the process and the staff support. He said the task force was concerned about the economy and agreed a strong economy was an important part of any proposal. He referred to the considerations listed on page 1-2 of the task force report and asked the council to review them at a later time. Mr. Gaydos said that the task force had focused on the restaurant tax. Members recognized the cost of implementing such a tax. The task force had agreed it was important to work closely with the industry on a restaurant tax. Eugene had tourist attractions and sports events that drew people from across the region and they visited restaurants while in Eugene. He thought the recommendation was time-bound to some extent and needed to be considered in the context of the recession. However, Mr. Gaydos believed the task force still stood behind it. Mr. Funk said the task force was aware a restaurant tax failed before but did not let that affect its thinking. Given time, the task force believed a restaurant tax would be supported if the City offered the restaurants help to implement the tax. He suggested a percentage of a restaurant tax’s yield could be dedicated both to providing restaurants with electronic cash registers that helped to collect the tax and to a marketing campaign that encouraged people to go out to eat. The task force believed that because Eugene was a MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2010 Page 2 Work Session