MTC - Final Report 1-22-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The income from the revenue source should naturally grow with the growth of the City without the need for a rate adjustment, corresponding to the additional need for services. Review existing fees for services regularly and make predictable, periodic adjustments to reflect the increased cost of doing business. Some revenue opportunities might be worthwhile, but by themselves would not be sufficient to fill the entire General Fund revenue shortfall. It may not be possible to get all the way to a sustainable new revenue source immediately; a strategy that uses a local option property tax levy might beappropriate as a bridge until the new revenue source is in place. Any new revenue measure needs a comprehensive campaign designed to give voters a complete understanding of why the money is needed, who will pay the tax, fee or charge and what it will buy. A list of cuts in services that would be made if no new revenue source is identified should be provided. Options Restaurant Tax – This tax is paid by residents of Eugene as well as others who use City services but do not live here. Since the payer of the tax can afford to eat out, this tax may not be considered as much of a burden. A tax of 3 to 5% would generate approximately $8-$14 million and would be a small addition to a restaurant bill. While a Restaurant Tax is the recommended option for new revenue, the Task Force also identified two other options that might be further considered. The Task Force felt these alternatives are of interest but problematic and would require more thorough and careful examination. Utility Consumption Tax – This is a tax that would be paid by both individuals and businesses. A tax of 1.5% would generate at least $2 million annually after administrative costs and adjustments for low-income and high volume users. It would be optimal to work collaboratively with the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) to identify any potential problems with this option early on. Piggy- backing this tax on an existing billing system such as the one used by EWEB would be the most cost- effective way to implement it. City-wide Monthly Fee for Service – This is a per unit fee that is used to pay for certain services. The fee should not be for a service that is deemed to be essential, such as public safety services. The amount of the fee is important. Recognizing that the fee needs to generate enough to cover the administrative costs, $5 a month is considered acceptable whereas $10 a month would be too much. The fee would be paid by both individuals and businesses and the basis for the fee could be used to encourage other types of desired changes. Revenue Options That Were Not Recommended Initially, a list of 15 revenue sources was considered. The appendix includes a description of each option and the recommended action of the Task Force. Attachments 1.Templates for All Revenues Sources That Were Considered. 2.Criteria for Evaluating Revenue Alternatives – September 21, 2009 Memo. 3.Previously Identified General Fund Revenue Alternatives – October 22, 2009 Memo. 4.Meeting the Challenge Background and Process.