Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/24/11 MeetingMINUTES Eugene City Council Council Chamber —City Hall 777 Pearl Street — Eugene, Oregon January 24, 2011 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, Pat Farr. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the January 24, 2011, regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Jim Hale, 1715 Linnea Avenue, opposed the proposed City income tax for schools because he believed it would harm business in Eugene and because school funding was a State responsibility. He believed a City income tax surcharge would be regressive in nature, but acknowledged that not adopting the surcharge approach would make the tax more complex and expensive to collect. Mr. Hale suggested that such a tax would take pressure off the legislature to act on behalf of the schools. He said the true purpose of the proposed tax was not clear; some argued about the need for haste to take advantage of voter discontent over school closures while others were concerned about layoffs and school instructional days. Mr. Hale said that many of those who would benefit from such a tax would not pay it and many who would pay it would not benefit. He urged the council to place pressure on the State to fund education. Jack Meacham, 2663 West 28` Avenue, expressed support for the West Eugene EmX extension. He termed it a visionary project that would alleviate future congestion in West Eugene and help accommodate population growth. Many citizens of Eugene, including low -wage employees, would have to rely on public transportation in the future because of the costs of cars. He predicted that West 11 "' Avenue would see an increase in sales and employment as a result of EmX. Donna DeForest, 3575 Westwood Ho Avenue, Bethel Stand for Children, reported her organization formally supported the proposed income tax for schools at its last meeting. She emphasized the importance of adequate education funding to close the achievement gap. She asked the council to place an income tax measure for education on the May 2011 ballot to avoid a shortened school year and increased class sizes. She did not think State government would increase school funding anytime soon. In the meantime, the achievement gap would grow. Pete Mandrapa, 4120 West Amazon Street, supported the proposed income tax for schools. He urged the council to place a measure on the May 2011 ballot and to make the tax as progressive as possible. In his view, a progressive tax was a tax on those residents making more than $50,000. He believed that if the City waited until November 2011 it would mean massive teacher layoffs. MINUTES — Eugene City Council January 24, 2011 Page 1 Regular Meeting Eileen Nittles, 121 West Hilliard Street, representing Lane County Stand for Children, noted the potential of much larger class sizes if no additional funding was found. She urged the council to show leadership and refer the proposed income tax for schools to the ballot. She asked those who were there for Stand for Children to stand if they were willing to support the proposed tax. Many members of the audience stood. Jim Hill, 2660 Spring Boulevard, supported the proposed income tax for education. Boyd Iverson, 1872 Willamette Street, questioned how the proposed West Eugene EmX extension could be considered sustainable when it cost so much and was projected to lose money annually. He also questioned if the EmX system represented a service improvement over existing service, which had more frequent stops. Mr. Iverson found no facts in the materials prepared by Lane Transit District (LTD) that proved that EmX was green or more environmentally friendly. He noted the many more trips that EmX vehicles would make in comparison to existing buses and suggested that increasing buses from 34 to 87 a day would cause both more congestion and pollution. He asked how adding more buses to the street would reduce congestion. The street would require more frequent maintenance at taxpayer cost because the new vehicles were even heavier than garbage trucks. Mr. Iverson questioned the advertising for EmX conducted by LTD. He suggested it EmX was a good program LTD would not have to advertise on its behalf. He also questioned whether the expenditure of public money on a promotional campaign was allowable, and asked the council to check into the use of the funding. Lisa Namyet, 2770 Capital Drive, spoke in support of the proposed City income tax for schools. She said Oregon had some of the largest class sizes and the shortest school years in the country now and those conditions would get worse if the City did not act now. She feared the damage to students and the community deterioration that would result if the cuts were made. She believed a tax measure had a good chance of passing now and said many of those present were willing to help pass a measure. She recommended the council refer the tax with the greatest likelihood of passing, and that the tax revenues be used to decrease class size and add school days. Ms. Namyet favored a November ballot to give the two districts' bond measures a chance to pass. Phyllis Kesner, 24102 Washington Street, expressed support for the proposed City income tax for schools because it was the only just way she saw to proceed. She said that the tax was needed soon. McKay Solhberg, 2691 Fairmount Boulevard, expressed support for a City income tax for schools to be placed on the May 2011 ballot. She had witnessed the results of years in disinvestment in the schools and questioned if young families would ever know the quality education her older children had experienced in Eugene schools. She said it was very difficult to recruit new University of Oregon faculty members in the face of the decline of schools. She emphasized the importance of healthy schools to a healthy economy. She questioned how teachers could be expected to instruct with fewer hours, materials, and help. Kim Sawyer, 2170 Greenview Street, recalled learning from the recent community presentation about Envision Utah that 80 percent of Utah residents had the chance to vote on the plans that emerged from that process. He asked the council to consider such an approach to the local region in cooperation with the State government. He did not think the West Eugene EmX extension was the correct way to address transit issues. He supported good public schools but questioned how an income tax in one community was fair. Mr. Sawyer called for a statewide initiative to fund all Oregon schools and suggested a sales tax or the use of State lottery dollars for education. MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 24, 2011 Page 2 Regular Meeting Steve Wilson, 4549 Souza Street, averred that the lack of mention of family and schools in the council's on -line biographies suggested a disconnection between the council and the public it served. He said that "Eugene has been busy being recognized for art enhancements" and suggested that "renaissance" had been at the expense of school system and was in direct conflict with the ideals of community families. He suggested the City could now "rest on its laurels" in regard to those efforts and instead work to create a learning environment for students to be educated enough to appreciate the art "created during this renaissance." Mr. Wilson wanted the State's lottery money to be reallocated to schools. He preferred to manage existing funds as opposed to giving government more money. However, he thought an income tax would acceptable if was fair. Wendy Butler - Boyesen, 1265 City View, supported the proposed City income tax for schools. She also expressed her support of the West Eugene EmX extension. She shared information about comparative corridor operating costs given to her by LTD in support of her contention that the West Eugene EmX extension was cost - effective in comparison to the no -build option. Ms. Butler - Boyesen praised the existing EmX system for its ease of use. Elaine Replogue, 2847 Martinique Avenue, favored a progressive income tax to be placed on the May ballot to restore lost school days, restore curriculum cuts, retain teachers, and decrease class sizes. She emphasized the importance of appealing to residents without children in the schools. She herself did not want to continue with public education if it was to be at the expense of her children. Ms. Replogue said Eugene could not wait for the State to act. She advocated for all residents with higher incomes to be taxed more to give Eugene children a better education. Marilyn Leer, North Shasta Loop, expressed support for a fair and equitable tax to support education. She said that many of retired citizens would not be paying any of the tax because of the PERS system. She believed if some retirees were to be exempted from the tax, the City needed to exempt all retirees, or find another way to fund the schools, which she would favor. She was concerned about the fairness of the tax being proposed and asked that it be made equitable for all. Phil Barnhart, Eugene, a State representative, reported that the State of Oregon had collected a tax for education on behalf of Multnomah County and had the authority to enter into a similar agreement with Eugene to collect a tax. Representative Barnhart said he had been working on the issue of school funding since the 1990s without much success, and maintained that the State of Oregon would not fit the problem anytime soon. He had done everything he knew how and had not been successful in reversing the direction of State budget cuts. He said Eugene could help only its own students. He emphasized the importance of a good education for Oregon students and for the sake of economy in general, and recommended the council refer an income tax proposal to the voters to support local schools. Casey Drobnick, 1475 East 15` Avenue, a University of Oregon student, supported the West Eugene EmX expansion. She said it would reduce road congestion and pollution on West I I d ' Avenue because vehicles would run in dedicated lanes. People would not have to spend their money on rising gas prices. She maintained EmX was a business investment and had been more successful than predicted. She believed more people would ride the system when it was expanded. EmX would take cars off the road, improve the environment, and be better for businesses along the corridor. Hillary Johnson, Eugene, Stand for Children, expressed support for the subcommittee process that led to development of the proposal for an income tax for schools. She supported the proposed measure and wanted to see it on the May 2011 ballot. She also asked that the tax be made retroactive to January 2011. MINUTES — Eugene City Council January 24, 2011 Page 3 Regular Meeting Kate McCarthy, 2243 Kincaid Street, expressed support for the proposed income tax for education and emphasized the importance of a strong educational system to recruiting new employees to Eugene health providers and supportive businesses. Eugene Drix, 307 -1/2 High Street, spoke of his attendance at a series of recent community events and expressed his pride in Eugene. He then went on to speak in, support of the proposed income tax and suggested that another nickel be assessed for returnable beverage containers to support schools. Michael Carrigan, 1439 West 4th Avenue, supported a local income tax to support education. He said every student was entitled to a quality education. He favored a progressive tax and said it was essential that it exempt the poor. He believed the measure should be on the May 2011 ballot to help the districts avoid the draconian cuts being considered. Carole Grappo, 551 River Loop 2, supported quality education but could not support what she considered an unjust income tax. She suggested the council instead consider a two- percent restaurant tax collected by the State for all schools as well as a three- percent tax placed on luxury items. Oregon already had a high income tax rate and she believed the proposed tax would hurt small business owners and earners making a marginal wage. She said no matter what instrument the council chose, it should include a sunset. She also objected that PERS retirees were exempted from the proposed tax. Pauline Hutson, 1025 Taylor Street, expressed concern about the loss of trees if the West Eugene EmX route was built down West 13 and West 11 avenues. She feared the impact that system buildout would have on area wildlife and "all to save six minutes." Ms. Hutson expressed concern that LTD was going to negatively affect the businesses that paid the majority of its costs, and called that taxation without representation because LTD board members were not elected by the people. Ms. Hutson asked if any members of the Community Resource Group or West Eugene Collaborative had visited any of the business owners in West Eugene and then acknowledged that it might be hard to face someone "when you were planning to ruin their lives." She supported public transportation in the right place and did not think EmX was the right system. She asked for a return of neighborhood bus service. Tara Sloan, 140 East 9 "' Avenue, spoke in support of the proposed City income tax measure to support schools. She asked the council to give the voters the opportunity to vote. She worried about the impact of additional reductions on the school system. She spoke of the importance of a strong educational system to the community. Craig Smith, 2611 Suncrest Avenue, Chair of the 4J School District Board of Directors, indicated that the district anticipated between $22 million and $28 million shortfall for the next year. He said it would be useful for the board to know when any tax revenues would be made available for budgeting purposes so it could discuss potential bridging strategies. He invited additional consultation. Dana Mitchell, 2815 Coburg Road, president of the Eugene Education Association and a 4J teacher, urged the council to refer a progressive income tax measure dedicated to local schools to the ballot. She emphasized the importance of a strong education system to a strong economy. Ms. Mitchell noted growing class sizes and the stress that placed on school facilities, the quality of instruction, and students' ability to learn. Class size impacted a teacher's ability to reach individual students. She emphasized the importance of providing students with a safe environment that prepared them for the future. Randy Bernstein, 4038 Alder Street, Principal of South Eugene High School, spoke in support of the proposed income tax and asked the council to give the community an opportunity to declare what it MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 24, 2011 Page 4 Regular Meeting valued. He spoke briefly of the reductions the district now contemplated, which included teacher layoffs, increased class sizes, school closures, and athletic program reductions. Josef Siekiel - Zdzienicki, 1025 Taylor Street, supported a fair tax to support education on the May ballot. He noted that Wal -Mart and Target were at the proposed West Eugene EmX terminus asked what that said about Eugene. Erin Ellis, 901 South 32 Place, Springfield, read a letter on behalf of Jan Nelson of Eugene in opposition to the West Eugene EmX extension. On her own behalf, she spoke to Ms. Butler- Boyesen's remarks, saying that LTD had recalculated its numbers to reduce the projected costs of the system, and she questioned how the number it had arrived at could be possible. Kirsten Haugen, 1436 East 22 " Avenue, supported the proposed City income tax for education and asked the council to refer a progress, temporary, modest tax to the voters. She noted the already reduced number of school days. She was a person of moderate income who was willing to pay the tax because it would cost more to watch the community deteriorate. She agreed with others who did not think Eugene could wait for the State to act. Tammy Young, 2238 University Street, supported the proposed City income tax for schools. She would happily pay such a tax and so would many of her neighbors,and friends. Ms. Young asked the council to refer a tax measure to the voters so they could make the decision to stand for their children. Kyle Yamata, 480 Kingswood Avenue, urged the council to support an income tax dedicated to the schools to maintain basic services. He said he currently taught classes of as many as 40 students, making it very challenging to get to every student for personalized feedback and quality education. He wanted to avoid further teacher layoffs and even larger classes. John Barofsky, 2010 Hubbird Lane, favored a well- funded school system. While he believed the City had a role in the solution to education funding, he also enumerated some of the basic services the City delivered for which funding must be preserved. He suggested that whenever a new revenue source was considered that the council must think about the City organization as a whole. While it might be correct to refer an income tax to the voters, Mr. Barofsky questioned whether the referral should occur in May, given that the City would be weeks away from its own financial forecast at that time. Mr. Barofsky said the tax in question was complex and while the subcommittee that developed the tax proposal had reviewed many of the issues involved, that review had been at a superficial level due to a lack of time. He recommended that the council refer the measure to the voters in November 2011 to address his concerns and to avoid jeopardizing the school districts' May 2011 bond measures. He pointed out that no matter which ballot the council selected, the funds generated by such a tax would not be available until mid to late 2012. Mr. Barofsky also called for study of the economic impacts of such a tax. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. She thanked all those who spoke. Councilor Ortiz also thanked those who spoke. She suggested that making comments about a specific business was not appropriate, and pointed out that Wal -Mart was the first business to respond to those who suffered from Hurricane Katrina. MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 24, 2011 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark expressed appreciation for the testimony the council received regarding the proposed income tax. He asked if any of those present in the audience who expressed support for the tax lived north of the Willamette River. Five people in the audience raised their hands. Councilor Brown thanked those who spoke in support of the proposed income tax and looked forward to the council's work session on the topic. Councilor Zelenka also thanked those who spoke about the proposed income tax. He agreed that healthy schools were the cornerstone of a healthy community. They were a key element in business recruitment. The existing situation was creating a school system in failure and in crisis. He agreed the State would not fix the problem any time soon. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - November 8, 2010, Work Session - November 8, 2010, Regular Meeting - November 10, 2010, Work Session - November 15, 2010, Public Hearing - November 17, 2010, Work Session - November 22, 2010, Joint Meeting of the Eugene City Council and Eugene Planning Commission - December 8, 2010, Work Session - December 13, 2010, Regular Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Mayor Piercy withdrew the November 22, 2010, minutes of the joint meeting of the Eugene council and Planning Commission from the Consent Calendar. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar with the exception of the minutes of the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of November 22, 2010. Roll call vote: The motion passed unanimously, 7:1:0, with Councilor Farr abstaining from the vote because he was not present at any of the meetings in question. 3. Resolution 5022 Concerning the Sale of Water to the City of Veneta City Manager Jon Ruiz reviewed the terms of the resolution before the council. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to adopt Resolution 5022 concerning the sale of water to Veneta. Councilor Zelenka believed Eugene should participate in a regional water master planning effort with the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) and other interested parties. He reported that the EWEB commissioners had adopted a resolution calling for the development of a regional water plan, and he was proposing an amendment to add a section to the resolution calling for City cooperation with that effort. MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 24, 2011 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Farr, moved to amend the proposed resolution by adding a new subsection 3 to read as follows: 3. On January 18, 2011, the Eugene Water & Electric Board adopted Resolution 1105 stating that EWEB will continue conducting regional water planning and pursuing collaborative opportunities with other jurisdictions, including the City of Eugene. The city manager shall work with EWEB as part of a collaborative regional water planning effort, guided by Attachment B of the January 11, 2011, AIS, and shall seek an initial scoping meeting in the first half of 2011. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the amendment by deleting "...guided by attachment B of the January 11, 2011, AIS." Councilor Clark preferred that staff return with a scope of work. Councilor Taylor supported Councilor Zelenka's amendment. Councilor Brown recalled that he had initially not been supportive of the proposal but after considerable study he supported the sale. All Eugene's neighboring communities would grow and like Eugene, they had water needs. He recalled asking if EWEB should be the region's water supplier, and he had come to believe it should be. He preferred to see regional public cooperation and responsibility sharing rather than to see an assortment of private providers. He supported Councilor Zelenka's motion. Councilor Zelenka reviewed some of the questions included in Attachment B and indicated to Councilor Clark that he did not intend that it dictate the process. He was seeking both collaboration and focus. Councilor Farr determined from City Attorney Glenn Klein that the amendment would not affect the sale of water to Veneta. Councilor Pryor said he was comforted by the word "guided." He thought the attachment was acceptable as a guide as it would not dictate the actions of either Veneta or EWEB. Mayor Piercy did not see a significant difference between the two approaches and indicated she would support the original amendment if called upon to do so. She thought that the issue was very important and timely. Roll call vote: The amendment to the amendment failed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Poling, and Farr voting yes. Roll call vote: The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0 Roll call vote: The motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0 4. WORK SESSION: 4J and Bethel Budget Shortfall Finance Director Sue Cutsogeorge was present for the item. She reported on the work of the subcommittee charged by the council to develop a tax proposal, reminding the council that the subcommittee's recommendations were provided to it earlier in the day via e -mail. She also noted the distribution of an analysis of the proposed tax by the consulting firm EcoNorthwest. MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 24, 2011 Page 7 Regular Meeting Ms. Cutsogeorge sought direction from the council on the proposed tax measure, referring the council to the policy questions identified by staff in Attachment A of the Agenda Item Summary. At the request of Mayor Piercy, Ms. Cutsogeorge shared costs from past elections, which ranged between $20,000 and $77,000. The cost could be as high as $290,000 for a November ballot on which the measure was the only item. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back for council consideration on February 14 a proposed ballot measure for the May ballot that: 1. Approves a local income tax on Eugene residents that would sunset after six years; 2. Is designed to raise revenue sufficient to (a) allow the two school districts to reduce or eliminate furlough days and keep average class size from increasing to the extent possible; and (b) to cover the costs of implementing the measure; 3. Divides the tax revenues (after deducting the costs of implementation) between the two school districts based on the number of students in each district who reside within the city limits; 4. Would reduce or suspend the local income tax if the State either (a) increases state funding of the districts to the point that additional local revenues are no longer needed to restore furlough days or prevent average class size from increasing, or (b) requires that the local income tax revenues decrease the amount of state funding for the districts; 5. Requires the school districts to provide an annual report to the City Council describing how the income tax revenues were spent; and 6. Requires the school districts to establish a review panel, similar to the Citizen Street Repair Review Panel, comprised of four members appointed by the Bethel school district, four members appointed by the Eugene school district, and four members appointed by the Mayor, two of whom should be business representatives and two who opposed the measure. In addition, I move to direct the City Manager to ask each school district how much revenue the district would like to receive from the measure to achieve the outcomes. Mayor Piercy solicited comments on the motion. Councilor Taylor agreed with Mr. Hale that the schools were not the City's responsibility and with Mr. Barofsky about the City's own needs, but she considered the school funding situation to be an emergency and supported putting a measure on the May 2011 ballot. She advocated for a progressive, temporary tax that was related to the State tax and targeted at those with incomes over $50,000. She believed that the State tax was already regressive, and some residents were barely covering their living expenses now and would be less likely to support the tax if they had to pay it. Councilor Clark shared the values of those who advocated for the measure. The districts' revenue shortfalls affected his family as well, but based on the revenue projections put forward by the subcommittee he would not have to pay the tax. Councilor Clark did not object to referring a measure to the voters, but he was concerned about the economic impacts of such a tax and did not want to make conditions worse. MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 24, 2011 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark suggested if the situation was truly an emergency, the City had $7 million in reserves that it could use for the schools. He wanted to proceed intelligently because of the profound impact he thought such a tax could have on the community and for that reason preferred a later election date. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to change the ballot date in the motion from May 2011 to November 2011. Councilor Clark supported a November date because Governor Kitzhaber had indicated he intended to change the education system and the impact of that was not yet known. He pointed out that both districts had May bond measures and he was concerned that both measures would be doomed if they appeared on the same ballot as an income tax measure. He also feared that failure of the measure could jeopardize the council's credibility. Councilor Farr shared Councilor Clark's concerns regarding competition between measures. He asked Superintendent Colt Gill of the Bethel School District if the district intended to move forward with the bond measure it planned to place on the May 2011 ballot. Superintendent Gill indicated the Bethel District School Board of Directors had postponed that decision pending the council's decision about the proposed income tax. Councilor Farr recalled his work as a State representative and agreed with Representative Barnhart that the State was not likely to act this year. Councilor Zelenka acknowledged Mr. Barofsky's comments about the City's own financial needs. However, he also believed the City could not wait for the State to fix the school funding problem. He wanted to place a measure on the May ballot and suggested the school districts' bond measures and the income tax measure could create synergy for one another as they were all related to the future of the schools. He supported the motion. He asked staff to provide the council with the yield from a graduated tax that started at an income of $35,000. Councilor Poling observed that school funding had been an issue since 1993 and he did not consider the current funding shortfall to represent an emergency. He supported a strong school system but also believed school funding was a State responsibility. He expressed concern that passage of a local tax would take the burden of resolving the school funding problem off the legislature and cause it to further delay a solution. He favored a November 2011 ballot measure for reasons of timing and because of concerns about competing ballot measures. Councilor Poling asked if the tax would be a tax on money earned by people living inside Eugene or people working inside Eugene. City Attorney Klein clarified that those subject to the tax would be Eugene residents only. Councilor Poling preferred a flat tax paid by all. It concerned him that residents living outside the city limits would benefit from the tax but would not have to pay it. He was also concerned that the tax might discourage business investment or cause people to move out of the community. While Councilor Poling personally opposed such a tax, he represented his constituents, not his personal beliefs, and indicated he would support both the motion and the amendment because he thought such a tax was a decision to be made by the citizens of Eugene. MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 24, 2011 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor agreed with Representative Barnhart that the State was unlikely to act in a timely way. However, he also agreed with the concerns voiced by Mr. Barofsky. He said that there were many questions remaining to be answered about the issue of school funding and he questioned whether the council could answer them in a deliberate matter before taking action on February 14. Councilor Pryor concurred with Councilor Poling that the funding problem had been in place for some time and he also questioned the need to place the measure on the May ballot. He believed that the November ballot was more realistic in light of all the unanswered questions. He wanted to hear more details about the proposed tax and did not want to be rushed. He emphasized his long -time support and work for the schools and said he wanted any action the council took to be careful, thoughtful, and deliberative so the resulting tax would succeed. Councilor Brown agreed the threshold for the tax should be lower and pointed out that many people who did not make $50,000 annually had offered to share in the responsibility of funding the schools. He also agreed that the. State would not act in time to help and might actually provide less funding than was anticipated. He agreed there were many unknowns about the tax but thought the council would sufficient information to act on February 14. He believed the measure needed to be on the May ballot or there would be 100 fewer teachers and fewer instruction days next year. Responding to a question from Councilor Farr about the retroactivity of the tax, City Attorney Klein indicated that a tax passed in either May or November could be retroactive to January 1, 2011. Mayor Piercy thought all people involved in the discussion understood the timing was not perfect and all would have preferred more time. She concurred that a November ballot date would not avoid the reductions that the districts were contemplating, and for that reason supported placing the measure on the May ballot. Councilor Clark asked that staff contact Tim Duey of the University of Oregon or another suitable economist to give the council better information about the impacts of the tax on the local economy. He also wanted to know if the City could take any action that affected the residents of Coburg, who sent their children to 4J schools but would not be subject to the tax. Councilor Clark asked if PERS retirees were exempted from the tax. Ms. Cutsogeorge said yes. There was a State preemption against local income taxes being applied to PERS benefits. She did not know the financial impact of that preemption. Councilor Zelenka asked staff to work with staff of the two districts to analyze the fiscal impact of the two different election dates. Councilor Pryor observed that there were many unanswered questions, including whether the City could even collect the tax before January 2012 if it passed. He supported a May ballot date at this time but would not commit to that date if the council's questions were not answered by February 14. Councilor Farr asked if the districts could issue tax anticipation notes. School District 4J Chief Financial Officer Susan Fahy said yes. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to call the question. Roll call vote: The motion to call the question passed, 6:2; councilors Zelenka and Farr voting no. MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 24, 2011 Page 10 Regular Meeting Roll call vote: The amendment to the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Clark and Poling voting yes. Roll call vote: The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 6't� j'-Z� Beth Forrest City Recorder (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 24, 2011 Page 11 Regular Meeting