CC Minutes - 04/27/11 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mayor Piercy observed that the proposed tax was modeled on the Multnomah County tax, which had sunsetted after four years. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy solicited comments on the main motion. Mr. Clark said while the quality of schools meant a great deal to him, he opposed the motion. He recalled his preference for taking action to assist the schools in the fall following the completion of the legislative session. He did not think the measure was an effective way to help the schools and thought the tax could potentially harm the schools. He said it could harm the economy and families. Mr. Farr emphasized the fact that despite the amendment just passed, the council could not stop a future council from extending the tax. He said residents had fears that the council would change things that past councils had done and even things that voters had voted upon. He had concerns about the lack of firm information about the costs of administration of the tax. Mr. Farr had also preferred taking action in November, which would have given staff more time to clarify the details of the tax. He questioned adding to the income tax burden of residents when they already paid some of the highest income tax rates in the country. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Farr about the timing of the issue. He continued to have questions about the mechanics of the tax that staff had been too burdened with work to determine. He also continued to believe the tax was unfair because of the fact that many students lived outside the city limits and their families would not be subject to the tax. In addition, some Eugene residents were inside the Junction City School District and it made no sense to tax those residents for Eugene schools. The tax would not fix the problem, would be a temporary stop -gap, and it was possible passage of the tax would make it easier for the State to avoid addressing the problem. He also questioned the emergency nature of the problem given how long it had been in existence. Mr. Zelenka averred Oregon had high income taxes because it lacked a sales tax. He said no tax was perfect. However, he believed the proposed tax was workable and it accomplished what the council was trying to accomplish. He concurred that education funding was a State responsibility but the State had failed to solve the problem and did not appear to have a plan to do so. Mr. Zelenka declared "enough is enough." He did not want to see shorter school years or larger class sizes. He believed the structure of the tax was fair and equitable. It was not fair to require those below the poverty line to pay more, and the ordinance removed the burden from those residents and placed it on those who could afford it. Speaking to the gas tax mentioned by Mr. Clark, Mr. Brown pointed out the council agreed to extend it unanimously. He believed the most unfair thing would be to not pass the ordinance because it would increase classroom sizes and shorten the school years. He believed the system was reaching a crisis point, as evidenced by the loss of 100 teachers and 10 school days and increased class sizes. Mr. Brown emphasized the difference that smaller class sizes made to education. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Brown about the importance of quality schools and about the consequences of fewer school days and larger classes. However, the council was only considering one side of the balance sheet. He believed the solution was cost control, and that was a legislative function. He said if local school districts could do more to control their costs, such as the cost of PERS and employee compensation, he believed Eugene would have world class schools. However, that was not the case. Because of that, he did not think the council should try to solve the schools' funding problem. It MINUTES— Eugene City Council April 27, 2011 Page 3 Work Session