Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/22/1992 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall September 22, 1992 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Shawn Boles, Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan, Debra Ehrman, Bobby Green, Randy MacDonald, Paul Nicholson, Kaye Robinette. The work session of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. I. WORK SESSION: EUGENE DECISIONS City Councilors offered a series of proposals regarding funding sources, funding source combinations, and whether to refer a revenue to the voters. The council agreed to postpone evaluation of the proposals until all were presented. e 1. Fund the core with a five percent restaurant tax with a ten-year sunset not to be referred to the voters, with any remaining dollars used to fund the library. The tax would be implemented in fiscal year 1994. (Boles) 2. Fund the core with a 2.5 percent restaurant tax with no referral to voters. (Boles) 3. Fund the core with a 2.5 percent restaurant tax with no referral and no sunset, and fund the library with a 2.5 percent restaurant tax without a sunset, that tax to be referred to the voters. (Ehrman) 4. Fund the core with a 2.5 percent restaurant tax with a 10-year sunset, the tax to be referred to the voters. Action on the library to be postponed until the results of private fund-raising effort were known. (Robinette) Mr. Robinette noted that he supported placing a property tax increase on the ballot to give voters a chance to indicate their support for fire station construction and fire redeployment. 5. Council commitment to the future development of strategies related to the library and fire station construction. (MacDonald) e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 22, 1992 Page 1 5:30 p.m. e 6. Presentation to the voters of a charter amendment instituting a restau- rant tax with a five percent cap, with the amount collected to be linked to the costs of the core shortfall and implementation of community ~ policing and fire redeployment. (Miller) 7. Support the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with a 2.5 percent restaurant tax with a ten-year sunset and referral to the voters. (Rutan) Responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Rutan explained that his proposal assumed core funding and a totally unfunded capital program. 8. Fund the core with a four percent utility tax with a ten-year sunset to be referred to the voters. (Rutan) 9. Fund the core and library with a five percent restaurant tax with a ten- year sunset to be referred to the voters. (Boles) 10. Fund the CIP with a restaurant tax not to exceed 2.5 percent by stipu- lating that the cap would be included in charter by amendment. That revenue would be referred to the voters. (Miller) 11. Fund the core shortfall and the proposed enhancements with a five percent restaurant tax with no sunset to be referred to the voters. The tax would be capped at five percent by a charter amendment. (Green) e Mr. Rutan spoke in favor of focusing on the core proposal and delaying consideration of the enhancements at the present time. He said that seeking voter approval of the enhancements was a serious mistake and would be inter- preted as "government as usual." Mr. Rutan said the council would have the opportunity to pursue the enhancements in the future. Ms. Bascom said her concern was to secure a positive vote for the public's selected revenue source, the restaurant tax. She said the more services that the council added to the final strategy, the more difficult approval would be to obtain. Ms. Bascom said the council's goal should be a package that is easy to defend before the voters. Ms. Ehrman said she agreed with Mr. Rutan's comments about delaying the enhancements, and pointed out that several of the proposals gave the council the ability to seek voter approval when it was ready to move projects forward. She indicated interest in Mr. Green's proposal, and asked if the council could start multiple construction projects simultaneously. Mr. Wong said that the City had a variety of tools that would allow it to support simultaneous projects. Mr. Boles called the council's attention to the process goal of stability and the need to solve multiple problems simultaneously. He pointed out that the current library is at capacity and could not support the community through the coming decade. Mr. Boles said that he was willing to discuss the issue of e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 22, 1992 Page 2 5:30 p.m. e referral, but he was strongly committed to the notion of a sunset on any selected revenue source. ~ Mr. Nicholson indicated his support for focus on a proposal to fund the core. Mr. Robinette said that the council needed to solve the core shortfall before entering into discussion with the community about how and whether to address the enhancements. He believed that the enhancements were important, and expressed the hope that the council could institute them in the future. Mr. Green said his proposal was structured to have widespread appeal to the community. He said he wished to fund the entire package or fall back on Strategy C. He believed that the public had expectations regarding both fire redeployment and the library, and those expectations resulted in support for those services. Mr. Green said that a restaurant tax would capture revenue from visitors. He supported a cap on the tax, but did not support a sunset. Mr. MacDonald agreed that there was community support for the enhancements. He believed that the library and fire redeployment would garner more votes as an individual packages and supported separating the enhancements from the core. Mr. MacDonald said the council should address the core first. The council discussed the issue of sunsetting versus establishing a cap on any selected revenue source through an amendment to the city charter. Ms. Ehrman pointed out the possibility of projects taking so long that they e ran into the ten-year sunset point. She suggested that, were a sunset to be a mechanism the council agreed upon, the trigger for a vote renewing the tax be something other than a specific year, such as a period of time after project completion. Mr. Boles said that his interpretation of a sunset was that it would eliminate the tax. The City Council at the time sunset occurred would need to take action to reinstate the tax. Mr. Rutan suggested that the sunset and the inclusion of the tax in the charter could contribute to the acceptability of the tax to voters, but pointed out that with the current climate of general distrust of government such components might not make a difference to some voters. Mr. Nicholson endorsed Mr. Green's remarks regarding the need for Strategy C as a fallback measure, saying that it was a legitimate outcome of any vote rejecting a revenue measure. He suggested that Mr. Green's proposal provided the council with a means to take a long-term view of the service system and avoided the need to make a short-term, expedient decision that gained a partial victory moving the City only halfway to the process goal of sustain- ability. Mr. Robinette referred to the council priorities and maintained that not all the enhancements were of equal importance. He added that prior to presenting e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 22, 1992 Page 3 5:30 p.m. e the community with Strategy C, he wanted more analysis about it in order to be able to accurately describe how it would appear. He was not willing to move toward that strategy if a revenue measure is defeated, although he agreed that the organization might end in that position. Mr. Nicholson clarified that he was referring to Strategy C was a means to address the short-term following a defeat at the polls. Mr. Boles said he supported a council effort that made the best attempt to meet the process goal. He said Mr. Green's proposal provided the community with an opportunity to decide what kind of community it wanted to be. 12. Fund the core, the library, and fire redeployment through a five percent restaurant tax with a 15- to 20-year sunset, to be referred to the voters. (Boles) Responding to a question from Mr. Miller, City Attorney Bill Gary said there was no reason the council could not institute a sunset through the charter. To continue a tax would require a vote. Mr. Miller said that the public did not view all City services to be of equal value. He said he was uncomfortable with a focus on the core due to his concerns about other services such as community policing. Mr. Rutan stressed the condition of the budget, saying that the City was out of money. The council could only achieve acceptance from the community regarding its decisions if it can demonstrate financial responsibility. He e warned that seeking more money than necessary to fund the "bare bones basic" program would result in failure. Ms. Bascom opposed the idea of offering a rate cap through the charter or a sunset provision as a "carrot" to the voters. Mr. MacDonald agreed with Mr. Rutan, adding that the community needs time to see the results of the cuts that the council has agreed upon. He said that further, he was not prepared to turn to a Strategy C if the public rejects a revenue measure. Mr. MacDonald said he wanted to exhaust all options possible to avoid Strategy C. Ms. Ehrman suggested that the council consider establishing a restaurant tax with an authorized 2.5 percent rate and five percent cap, and stipulate through the charter that the rate can only be raised to address other service needs by an affirmative vote of the public. Ms. Ehrman added that the experience of the Eugene Agenda had shown that a link between the tax and the proposed expenditure was immaterial to the public. 13. Fund the core through a 2.5 percent restaurant tax, with subsequent "implementation" votes authorizing an increase in the rate for each approved enhancement to a cap of five percent, with referral of the concept to the voters and no sunset. (Ehrman) e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 22, 1992 Page 4 5:30 p.m. e Mr. Boles disagreed with Mr. Rutan's conclusions. He said that the community had indicated that it did not want the service system represented by Strategy C, and further indicated support for a restaurant tax. Regarding the sunset provision suggested in several proposals, Mr. Boles said the provision was a protection for the voters rather than a "carrot." Regarding the "saleability" of the proposal suggested by Mr. Green, Mr. Boles said that a case could be made that each component included in the proposal was necessary to a sustain- able, comprehensive service base. The meeting recessed at 7:05 p.m. and resumed at 7:15 p.m. The council reviewed and ranked the proposals. The proposals receiving the most support on an initial straw poll were 4, 10, 11, and 13. The council examined the remaining proposals for clear themes and agreed that, due to the similarities between proposals 10 and 4, to eliminate Proposal 10 from further discussion while modifying Proposal 4 by the addition of a provision instituting the sunset through a charter amendment. The council cast another series of straw polls indicating councilors' first and second preferences among the remaining three selections. Proposal 4 received a total of 20 points (five first place, one second place, and three third place votes); Proposal 10 received a total 11 points (one first place, two second place, and three third place votes); and Proposal 13 received a total of 19 points (three first place and five second place votes). e The council agreed to drop Proposal 11 from further consideration. Councilors discussed the reasons behind their selections. Mr. MacDonald said his vote in support of Proposal 4 was due to his belief that the community was given a clear signal that action on the library would occur. Mr. Rutan said his support for Proposal 4 was centered around the provision to refer the proposal to the community. He noted his lack of support for the restaurant tax. Ms. Ehrman said that Proposal 13 provided a long-term plan and vision for the service delivery system. She pointed out that the voters would still have control over the timing and cost of service enhancements. Mr. Boles said that he was concerned over the lack of a sunset provision in Proposal 13, and indicated he would continue to have serious reservations about the wisdom of any revenue source if it did not include that provision. Mr. Green indicated his concurrence with Ms. Ehrman's remarks. He said he would consider instituting a sunset if necessary to gain council approval of Proposal 13, but preferred a length of 15 to 20 years rather than 10. Mr. MacDonald pointed out that the institution of a sunset did not preclude the voters from adjusting the sunset at a later date in response to the timing e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 22, 1992 Page 5 5:30 p.m. e of projects. He said that he would like to see language included in any charter amendment providing for a sunset and that authorized projects with debt service extending beyond the sunset date would require an amendment to the sunset by voters. Mr. Robinette suggested that projects could be phased and different sunset dates attached to each phase as the phase was implemented and as appropriate. Mr. Nicholson said while he did not agree that a sunset provision would contribute to the "saleability" of a revenue, he believed a sunset was necessary for the sake of fiscal discipline. Mr. Boles endorsed Mr. Nicholson's point. He added that the council could consider extending the sunset period or craft the charter amendment to provide a time limit for funding the core and any subsequent project authorized by the voters. Mr. Boles said that Proposal 13, as designed, solved a major difficulty the council faced in dealing with private fund-raising for the library. The proposal would allow the council to set a threshold level for private fund- raising prior to taking the issue to the voters. Mr. Miller objected to sunset provisions for services he considered basic, such as fire redeployment and community policing. Mr. MacDonald cautioned the council that Proposal 13 would not be easy to explain to the voters. The council took another straw poll on the remaining proposals. Mr. Rutan, e Mr. Robinette, Mr. MacDonald, and Ms. Bascom indicated their support for Proposal 4; Mr. Boles, Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Nicholson, and Mr. Green indicated their support for Proposal 13. The council agreed to revisit the proposals at its meeting the following day. The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Micheal Gleaso --- City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) mncc5322.092 e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 22, 1992 Page 6 5:30 p.m.