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