The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem B: Report of Council Subcommittee on Human Services Funding ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Report of Council Subcommittee on Human Services Funding Meeting Date: April 11, 2012 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5589 ISSUE STATEMENT Councilor Pryor will present a report to the City Council from the Council Subcommittee on Human Services Funding detailing its work and recommendations from discussions held in the fall of 2011. This is an information item and no action is required. BACKGROUND The City Council Subcommittee on Human Services Funding was created during the Budget Committee meetings in May 2011. The subcommittee consisted of George Brown, Pat Far, Andrea Ortiz and Chris Pryor. The charge of the subcommittee was to explore options to secure an increased level of stable and long-term funding for human services in the community. The subcommittee met four times over the course of two months for its discussions, and produced a report to the full City Council that recommended a level of investment in funding for human services and an on-going funding source adequate to cover the recommended service level. That report is included as Attachment A. It should be noted that the subcommittee did not consider which agencies should be funded or the funding level for individual agencies. Councilor Pryor will present the subcommittee’s report to the full council, as was agreed to by the subcommittee at the final meeting. RELATED CITY POLICIES Council Goals include a goal for fair, stable and adequate financial resources. This is defined as a government whose ongoing financial resources are based on a fair and equitable system of revenues which are adequate to maintain and deliver municipal services. The council-adopted Financial Management Goals and Policies include policies related to dedication of revenues and diversification of revenue sources.  Policy B.9. – Non-Dedicated Revenues. With the exception of grants or earmarked donations, the City will not normally earmark revenue for specific public purposes in general service funds such as the General Fund.  Policy C.1. – Revenue Base. The council will work to diversify the supporting revenue base in the General Fund S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120411\S120411B.doc COUNCIL OPTIONS No action required; therefore, no options are presented. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends considering any new revenue source for human services funding in the context of other new revenue conversations both for City services (i.e., General Fund gap, ambulance transport, park operations and maintenance, street funding) and other jurisdictions (i.e., county public safety, schools capital funding). SUGGESTED MOTION None. ATTACHMENTS A. Final Report: City Council Subcommittee on Human Services Funding, February 3, 2012 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge, Finance Director Telephone: 541-682-5589 Staff E-Mail: Sue.L.Cutsogeorge@ci.eugene.or.us S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120411\S120411B.doc CITTY CCOUUNCIL SUBCOOMMMITTEEE ONN HHUMMANN SERVIICE FFUNNDINNG FINALL REPOORT Feebruary 3, 20112 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background...............................................................................................................1 SummaryandRecommendations.............................................................................2 Appendices A.SubcommitteeMinutes B.BestandWorstOutcomes C.ƵŐĞŶĞ͛ƐHumanServicesBudget,withSixYearHistory D.RevenueInformation 1)FundingMatrix 2)UtilityConsumptionTax 3)PublicServiceFee 4)TerminationofRiverfrontUrbanRenewalDistrict 5)LocalOptionLevy RestaurantTax 6) E.WheretoFindMoreInformation Background TheCityCouncilSubcommitteeonHumanServiceFundingwascreatedduringtheBudget CommitteemeetingsinMayof2011. ThechargeoftheSubcommitteewastoexploreoptionstosecureanincreasedlevelofstable andlongtermfundingforhumanservicesinthecommunity.TheSubcommitteewascharged withproducingareporttothefullCityCouncilthatrecommendedalevelofinvestmentin fundingforhumanservicesandanongoingfundingsourceadequatetocovertherecommend edservicelevel.ItshouldbenotedthattheSubcommitteedidnotconsiderwhichagencies shouldbefundedorthefundinglevelforindividualagencies. AspartofthisSubcommittee,membersreviewedcurrentCityfundinglevelsforhumanservices anddeterminedastablefundinglevelintothefuture.Membersconsideredregionalaspectsof thisissueandlookedatvariousfundingmechanismsincludingrepurposingexistingfundingas wellasnewrevenuesources.Additionalconsiderationwasgiventohowhumanservicefund ingalignswithotherfundingdiscussionsandunmetCityneeds,suchasambulancetransport funding,parksandrecreationoperations&maintenanceandotheritemsshownintheMulti YearFinancialPlan. TheSubcommitteeconsistedoffourCityCouncilors: GeorgeBrown PatFarr AndreaOrtiz ChrisPryor TheSubcommitteemetfourtimesoverthecourseoftwomonthsfortheirdiscussions.Aspart oftheirprocess,theSubcommitteereceivedpubliccommenttoinformtheirconversation. Theirproceedingswerecapturedintheminutes,whichareincludedasappendicestothis report. Recommendations Anydiscussionofhumanserviceneedsand/orfundingincludesanumberofcomplicatedand interrelateddynamics.TheSubcommitteediscussedthetypesofhumanservicesfundedin ourcommunity,thedesiredoutcomes,thegeographicareathatwouldbefocusedon,and fundinglevels.Eachofthesedimensionscouldbeviewedalongacontinuumthatrunsfrom moreconcreteresultsoverwhichtheCityhasmorecontrolandwhichcouldbeimplemented morequicklytomoreconceptualresultsoverwhichtheCityhaslesscontrolandwhichwould takemoretimetoaddress. TheSubcommitteedetermineditshouldfocusitseffortsonbothendsofthecontinuum, throughatwophasedstrategy.ThefirstphasewouldstabilizeandincreaseCityofEugene fundingforhumanservicesinthenearterm.Thiswouldbeastrategythatwouldbeunderthe ŝƚǇ͛Ɛcontrolandwhichcouldbeimplementedmorequickly,butwouldnotlikelyachieve everythingthatthecommunityandCouncilmightwantintermsofhumanserviceoutcomes. Thesecondphasewouldbeacommunitywideconversationabouthumanservicefunding levelsandoutcomes.Thesecondphasewouldbealongerterm,interjurisdictional conversation. Phase1CityofEugenenewfundinginthenearterm LevelandPurposeofFunding:Initialfocusofrevenuediscussionshouldbeonstabilizing humanservicefundingandaddingtotheŝƚǇ͛ƐexistingHumanServicesCommission(HSC) payment.Thedesiredleveloffundingwouldbeapproximately$2million,asfollows: Existing$1,035,000paymenttoHSCfromtheGeneralFund Existing$350,000paymenttoHSCfromCDBGFunds AdditionalpaymenttoHSCforotheroutcomestobedetermined CityofEugenerevenueshortfallreserveand/orcontingencyfundforemergingneeds TheamountsoftheadditionalpaymenttoHSCandtheCityofEugenerevenueshortfallreserve orcontingencyfundwerenotspecifiedbytheSubcommittee.Thisleveloffundingwouldallow fortheHSCstabilizationpaymentsthathavebeenidentifiedonaonetimebasisattheBudget Committeetobemadeongoing,plussomeadditionalongoingfunding. ItshouldalsobenotedthattheSubcommitteerecognizesthatthisnewfundingisjustonepart oftheoverallCityofEugenebudgetforhumanservices.TheSubcommitteeunderstandsthat fundingforotherhumanservicesincludedintheŝƚǇ͛Ɛbudgetareatriskforbeingreduceddue tobudgetpressuresinthefuture.Theseinclude: Existing$1,035,000fromtheGeneralFund Existing$350,000fromCDBGFundsforHSCpayment Directcontractswithagencies,includingtheCAHOOTScontractforservicesfortwovans andonebackupvan,andhomelesscampingcontractwithSt.VincentdePaul. AffordablehousingcapitalprogramfundedwithCDBGdollars CommunityhousingandsecuritydepositassistancefundedwithHOMEdollars Therearenospecificplanstoreducefundingfortheseprograms,butasCitybudgetsare squeezedinthefuture,theseprogramswillbeunderconsiderationforreductions,alongwith allotherCityservicesthatshareintheGeneralFundandCDBG/HOMEprogramfunding. Despitethepotentialrisktofundinglevelsfortheseprograms,theSubcommitteedetermined thattheCityshouldnotmoveforwardwithnewrevenuestoreplacethecurrentbasefunding. Undertakinganewrevenuesourcetosupplementorreplacemoreofthattotalhumanservice budgetisprobablynotpoliticallyfeasibleinthecurrenteconomicenvironment.Therefore,the Subcommitteerecommendsamuchmoremodestapproachtostabilizingandsupplementing humanservicefundingatthistime. NewRevenuestobeConsidered:Totalamountofnewrevenuestobegeneratedforaddi tionalongoinghumanservicefundingshouldbeabout$600,000to$700,000.Revenuesto supporttherecommendationcouldcomefromoneofthefollowing: utilityconsumptiontax;or o publicservicefee(akautilityfeeormonthlyhumanservicefee). o Neitheroftheserevenuesourceswouldrequireapublicvote,althoughtheCityCouncilcould choosetosendtheissuetothevoters.Ifthenewrevenuesourcewerenotsenttoavote,the CityCouncilwouldneedtobeveryclear,accountableandresponsibleinputtingtogetherthe fundingpackage. Furtherevaluationregardingthemechanismforcollectionofthisrevenuewillrequire additionalanalysis.Atthepresenttime,theCitydoesnothaveaprocessinplaceforthe collectionoftheserevenues.Currently,robustcollectioneffortssuchasstormwaterand wastewaterfeesareprovidedthroughpartnershipwithEWEB.Basedonpastdiscussionsand research,thisisthemostcosteffectivemannerforcollectingeitherofthesenewrevenues. However,thiswouldrequiremoreanalysisanddialogwithEWEBtodeterminetheappropriate collectionmethod. Thepreliminaryestimateoftheimpacttocitizens/taxpayersfromtheserevenuesourcesis showninthefollowingchart: Amount RateRaisedImpacttoCitizens/Taxpayers UtilityConsumptionTax 0.3%$700,000~$0.50/householdpermonth 0.45%$1,000,000~$0.70/householdpermonth 1.0%$2,200,000~$1.50/householdpermonth MonthlyPublicServiceFee $1/month$700,000$12/yearperunit $1.50/month$1,000,000$18/yearperunit $3.00/month$2,000,000$24/yearperunit Note:Revenueamountsandimpacttocitizens/taxpayersareverypreliminaryandwillneedupdatingandrefinementiftheideamoves forwardatcouncil.Thesearegrossrevenueestimatesanddonottakeintoaccountthecostsofadministration. OtherOptions:TheSubcommitteediscussedseveralotheroptions,someofwhichwere sharedbyallmembers,andsomeofwhichwerepromotedbyaportionoftheSubcommittee membership. Councilshouldalsotakeacloserlookatcurrentoutcomesforhumanservicedollarsand seeifanyadjustmentsinoutcomesshouldbemade. CouncilshouldconsiderterminatingtheUrbanRenewalDistrictasawaytogenerate additionalGeneralFunddollars(bothonetimeandongoing)topayforhumanservices. Councilshouldlookforopportunitiestoidentifyonetimedollarsthatcouldbeusedfor humanservicefunding,suchasexcessEWEBCILTpaymentsorvacationofMossStreet. Onetimedollarswouldmostappropriatelybeusedforonetimespending,suchas capitalpurposes. Phase2broadercommunitydiscussionwithpartnersaroundregionalsolution TheSubcommitteedidnotspendalotoftimeoutliningthisconcept.TheSubcommitteewant edtoencouragethattheCitybeinvolvedinparticipatinginanysuchregionaldiscussions.The regionalsolutioncouldbesomethingthatbuildsoffoftheCityofEugenesolution,suchasex pandinganewrevenuesourcetoawiderareaoncetheCityimplementsanewfundingmech anism.Thebroadercommunitydiscussionwilllikelyoccurinadifferentarenaoutsideofthe CityCouncil'sdirectcontrol. Appendices A.SubcommitteeMinutes B.BestandWorstOutcomes C.ƵŐĞŶĞ͛ƐHumanServicesBudget,withSixYearHistory D.RevenueInformation 1)FundingMatrix 2)UtilityConsumptionTax 3)PublicServiceFee 4)TerminationofRiverfrontUrbanRenewalDistrict 5)LocalOptionLevy 6)RestaurantTax E.WheretoFindMoreInformation AppendixA Subcommittee Minutes MINUTES CouncilSubcommitteeonHumanServicesFunding BascomZŽŽŵͶƵŐĞŶĞPublicLibrary th 100West10ǀĞŶƵĞͶƵŐĞŶĞ͕Oregon October4,2011 12:15p.m. PRESENT:AndreaOrtiz,ChrisPryor,GeorgeBrown,members;AssistantCityManagerSarah Medary;CentralServicesDirectorKristieHammitt;AndyFernandez,Library, Recreation,andCulturalServicesDepartment;MiaCariaga,TwyllaMiller,Central ServicesDepartment;StephanieJennings,MikeSullivan,Community DevelopmentDivision;LoriKievith,PeteDeshpande,EugenePoliceDepartment; PearlWolfe,KatieBloch,LaneCountyHealthandHumanServices;JuanCarlos Valle,guest. ABSENT:PatFarr,member. facilitatedthemeeting. Mr.Fernandez I.SubcommitteeCharge Ms.HammittreferredthecommitteetotheProjectScopeStatement,includedinthemeeting ore packetprovidedtomembersinadvanceofthemeeting:Thecouncilsubcommitteewillexpl optionstosecureanincreasedlevelofstableandlongtermfundingforhumanservicesinthe community.Thesubcommitteewillproduceareporttothefullcouncil(writtenbystaff)that recommendsalevelofinvestmentinfundingforhumanservicesandanongoingfunding sourceadequatetocovertherecommendedservicelevel.Shepreviewedfutureagendatopic areas. Mr.Fernandezaskedthosepresenttoconsiderwhattheythoughtwouldbethebestandworst outcomesoftheĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛Ɛfourscheduledmeetings.Ms.Millerrecordedtheremarksmade oneaselpads.Mr.Fernandezsummarizedthethemesreflectedintheremarks,notingthat fearofdoingnothingwastheworstoutcomeexpressedmostfrequently,andadequatefunding wasthebestoutcomeexpressedmostfrequently. Thecommitteebrieflydiscussedtheapproachitwishedtotaketothediscussionsitplannedto have.Ms.Ortizdistinguishedbetweenmandatedanddiscretionaryservicesprovidedbythe CityandsuggestedthecommitteediscusswhattheCitywasobligatedtodoversuswhatit thoughtwastherightthingtodoinregardtohumanservicesfunding.Mr.Pryoragreed.Ms. Hammittpointedoutthatthecouncilhadnotdiscussedmandatedservicelevelsanytimeinthe lastthreeyears.Shesuggestedthetopicwasmostappropriatelyplacedinthelargercontextof theĐŽƵŶĐŝů͛Ɛgoals.Ms.Ortizbelievedshewouldbenefitfromsuchadiscussion. Mr.Brownaskedaboutthetotalunfundedneed.Ms.Wolfeindicatedthatforfiscalyear2012, theHumanServicesCommission(HSC)received$6.5millioninfundingrequestsandwasable tofundonly$3.8million.Ms.JenningsaddedthatthefundingmentionedbyMs.Wolfewas specifictooperationalcostsanddidnotincludecapitalcostsorthecostsofaffordablehousing andjobcreationefforts. Mr.PryorrecommendedthatthecommitteeavoiddiscussingtheGeneralFundtokeepits deliberationsmoremanageable.Hebelievedthatifthecommitteeattemptedtodiscuss budgetprioritieswithinthatcontextitwouldrealizeitsworstoutcomeandmakenoprogress. ttoquantifythescopeoftheneedanddiscussnon Hesuggestedthecommitteeattemp GeneralFundapproachestomeetingit.Mr.Fernandezsuggestedthatthecommitteeputthe useofGeneralFunddollarsinthe͞ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚ͘͟ II.HistoryandBreadthofHumanServicesFunding Ms.JenningsledthecommitteethroughaPowerPointpresentationentitledSocialServicesand AffordableHousing.ThepresentationhighlightedtheelementsoftheEugeneSpringfield ConsolidatedPlan,whichprovidedguidanceforcommunityinvestmentsinaffordablehousing, homeownership,andprogrammingthathelpedresidentstoselfsufficiency.Thepresentation alsoincludedinformationabouttheHumanServicesPlanforLaneCounty,whichguided communityinvestmentsinfourpriorityoutcomeareas:1)basicneeds,2)increasedself reliance,3)asafercommunity,and4)improvedaccesstoservices.Thepresentationincludeda breakdownofHumanServicesCommissionGeneralFundmembercontributionsforfiscalyear 2012andsummarizedtheŝƚǇ͛Ɛhistoriccontributionstohumanservicesfunding.Ms.Jennings highlightedhumanservicesfundingtrends,whichincludedcontinuedreductionsinStateand federalfunding,ashifttowardplacingpeopleinpermanenthousingratherthanemergency shelter,andchangesintheoverallmixofservicesasaresultofthemorecompetitivefunding processthathadbeenadopted. III.MultiYearFinancialPlan rstotheCityofEugeneMultiYearFinancialWůĂŶͶ&zϭϮ Ms.Millerreferredcommitteemembe FY17,includedinthemeetingmaterials,anddirectedthemtopage2ofthedocument,which summarizedtheŝƚǇ͛Ɛninehighestunfundedpriorities.TheprioritiesincludedtheGeneral Fundshortfall,AmbulanceTransportFundshortfall,ParkingFundstabilization,Parks&Open Spacemaintenance&operationscapacity,DeferredMaintenance,poolpreservation,pavement restorationbacklog,addedjailbeds,andtechnicalworkassociatedwithEnvisionEugene.Ms. Millerestimatedthetotalcostoffundingthenineitemsoversixyearsat$134million. IV.MeetingtheChallengeTaskForceReport Ms.MillerthenreferredmemberstotheMeetingtheChallengeFinalReport,datedJanuary22, 2010,andremindedthecommitteethatCityManagerJonRuizhadformedataskforceto discussnewrevenuesources.ThetaskforcerecommendedtheCityCouncilinstituteafive percentrestauranttaxanticipatedtoyieldabout$14millionannually.ThetaskĨŽƌĐĞ͛Ɛ sincludedautilityconsumptiontaxandcitywidemonthlyfeeforservice. alternativechoice V.NextSteps Mr.Fernandezbrieflynotedsomeoftheotherremarksmadeduringthebest/worstoutcomes discussionandsuggestedthattheyindicatedaninterestinlookingoutsidenormalfunding approaches,aninterestincomprehensiveapproachtofundingthatavoidedimpactstoother services,aninterestinpartnerships,andahopethattheprocessledtobetterservice prioritization. Mr.Pryoradvocatedforaprocessmodeledonthatusedbythecouncilcommitteeon transportationfunding,whichincludedconsiderationofmultiplefundingsourcesandtheir ionswitheachother. interact ThecommitteeagreedtoasuggestionbyMs.Hammittthatitdiscussthescopeoftheexisting needatthenextmeeting. Ms.OrtizadvocatedfordiscussionofwhethertheCityshouldcontinuetouseonetimeGeneral Funddollarstofundhumanservicesandaddtothatonetimemoneyorreplaceitwithfunding othersources.ShepointedouttheCityhadmanyunmetneedsthatitcouldspenditsGeneral Funddollarson.Ms.Hammittagreed.Shesuggestedthatstaffcouldforecastcostsforasix yearperiodandthecommitteecoulddiscussiftheservicemixwascorrectandhowthedirect contractsforservicesworkedinthemix. Speakingtotheideaofscopingtheneed,Ms.Jenningsexpressedconcernthattheexercise couldbecomeselfdefeatingiftheidentifiedneedwasverylarge.Shesuggestedthatinstead, thecommitteedefinethebaselevelofservices,identifytheŝƚǇ͛Ɛroleandtherolesplayedby others,andthendeterminethemosteffectiveservicesthatcouldbestrategicallyaddedtothe systemifmoremoneybecameavailable. Ms.OrtizsuggestedthattheCityneededsomesortoftriggermechanismtoincreaseorreduce fundingdependingonthemoneyreceived.Shelikedtheideaofhavingasixyearfundingplan. Ms.Hammittsuggestedthatthecommitteecouldalsodiscussatieredapproachtoservices. Mr.Pryorsuggestedthecommitteealsodiscussleveragingadditionalfundingthrough partnerships. Mr.Fernandezsummarizedtheconversation,sayingthecommitteewouldlookatthescopeof need,focusonnonGeneralFundsources,discussreplacingorsupplantingtheonetime funding,discusspossiblepartnershipsandtieredapproaches,receiveasixyearforecast,and discusstheimmediategapsinfundingthatwouldexistnextyear.Heanticipatedthatstaff wouldincludeapubliccommentperiodonfutureagendas. RespondingtoaquestionfromMr.Fernandezaboutotheragenciesorpartiestoinvolve,Mr. PryorencouragedstafftoprovidenoticeofthemeetingstothemembersoftheHuman ServicesNetwork.Healsosuggestedthatstaffcontactrepresentativesofeducation,health, andemploymentandhousingservices. Mr.Fernandezadjournedthemeetingat1:35p.m. (RecordedbyKimberlyYoung) MINUTES CouncilCommitteeonHumanServicesFunding th BascomZŽŽŵͶƵŐĞŶĞPublic>ŝďƌĂƌǇͶϭϬϬWest10Avenue Eugene,Oregon October25,2011 Noon PRESENT:AndreaOrtiz,ChrisPryor,GeorgeBrown,PatFarr,members;AndyFernandez, Library,Recreation,andCulturalServices;CentralServicesDirectorKristie Hammitt;TwyllaMiller,SueCutsogeorge,MiaCariaga,CentralServices Department;MikeSullivan,StephanieJennings,PlanningandDevelopment Department;PeteDeshpande,LoriKievith,EugenePoliceDepartment.There werealsoseveralmembersofthepublic. I.AgendaReview convenedthemeetingandreviewedtheagenda.Hestressedthatthis Mr.Fernandez committeewasnotgoingtoproviderecommendationsonwhichspecificprogramsoragencies receivefunding;ratherthiswasahigherlevelpolicydiscussionaboutoverallfundinglevelsand sources.HealsomentionedthattheprimaryinformationfortheĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛Ɛdiscussions wouldcomefromCitystaff. II.FollowupfromOctober4Meeting Ms.Millerprovidedanoverviewoftheagendamaterialsprovidedtothecommitteeasfollow uptothelastmeeting.ThosematerialsincludedamemorandumtothecommitteefromMs. MillerdatedOctober21,2011,entitledFollowupInformationfromOctober4Meeting,which summarizedthefundinginformationprovidedatthemeeting,amemorandumtothe committeefromMs.CutsogeorgeentitledDiscussionTopicsforOctober25Meeting,anda matrixofpotentialrevenuesources.Therewerenofollowupquestions. III.MinutesApproval Ms.Ortiz,secondedbyMr.Pryor,movedtoapprovetheOctober4,2011, minutes.Themotionpassedunanimously,3:1:0;Mr.Farrabstainedfromthe votebecausehewasnotpresentatthemeeting. IV.DiscussionofApproachtoDetermineFundingLevel Thecommitteeconsideredaseriesofcontinuumstohelpitdeterminethepotentialscopeof thefundinggap.Ms.Millerremindedthecommitteethatthelefthandsideofthecontinuum reflectedmoreconcreteresultsoverwhichtheCityhadmorecontrol,wereeasiertodealwith, andcouldbeimplementedquickly.Therighthandsideofthecontinuumreflectedmore conceptualresultsoverwhichtheCityhadlesscontrol,weremorecomplicatedtoaddress,and tookmoretimetoimplement.Committeemembersdiscussedthecontinuumsandtheir preferencesfortherangesrepresentedwithafocusonthe͞ǁŚĂƚ͕͟orthepossiblerangeof dollarvalues,andthe͞ŚŽǁ͕͟orthefundingmechanismneeded. Continuum#1TypeofServices &ŽƌƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐŽĨĚĞĨŝŶŝŶŐƚŚĞĨƵŶĚŝŶŐŐĂƉƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐƵďĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞǁŝůůƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƚŽŝƚǇ ŽƵŶĐŝů͕ǁŚĞƌĞƐŚŽƵůĚƚŚĞĨŽĐƵƐďĞŽŶƚŚĞƚǇƉĞƐŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƚŽďĞĐŽǀĞƌĞĚďǇƚŚĞĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ ƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶ͍ Traditional definition Traditional human of human services, services plus a very including HSC and broad range of social direct contracts with justice and equity providers services across the community Thecommitteebrieflydiscussedthescopeofpossibilitiesrelatedtotherightsideofthe continuumandthesubjectivenatureofwhatmightbeconsideredservicesthataddressed socialjusticeandequity.Thecommitteeagreeditwishedtokeeptotheleftsideofthe continuumbecauseoftheŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ͛ƐcurrentbudgetaryoutlookandŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͛desireto provideservicesthatweresustainableovertime. Continuum#2ʹDesiredOutcomes &ŽƌƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐŽĨĚĞĨŝŶŝŶŐƚŚĞĨƵŶĚŝŶŐŐĂƉƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐƵďĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞǁŝůůƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƚŽŝƚǇ ŽƵŶĐŝů͕ƐŚŽƵůĚƚŚĞĨŽĐƵƐďĞŽŶĂĐŚŝĞǀŝŶŐƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ͕ŽƌŝƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƐŝƌĞƚŽƌĞĨŽĐƵƐ ƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐƚŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ͕ŽƌƚŽĞǆƉĂŶĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƚŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ͍ Fund current human Fund current human Expand the outcomes service levels, but service levels and achieved with human review outcomes and achieve current services to include see if changes need to additional goals outcomes be made within current funding Thecommitteeagreedadesiredoutcomefortheleftsideofthecontinuumwouldbethatthe CitymaintaineditscurrentlevelofcontributiontotheHumanServicesCommission(HSC)ina sustainableway. Ms.Hammittsaidthatdesiredoutcomesshouldreflectothercouncilprioritiessuchas homelessnessanddowntownpublicsafetyandsuggestedthecommitteeconsiderhowfunded e serviceshelpedtheorganizationsupportthosegoals.Speakingtotherightsideofth continuum,shesuggestedthatitspoketohowtheCityorganizationworkedwiththe communityintermsofensuringserviceswereinplaceevenifnotfundedbytheCity. Speakingtotheissueofsustainability,Mr.PryornotedtheŝƚǇ͛Ɛpastmixofsustainableand unsustainablefundingforhumanservicesandquestionedwhethertheleftsideofthe continuumreflectedthatmix.Hesuggestedthatifthatwasthecase,thecommitteemight wanttoconsideraddingtothefigureitestablishedasasustainabletargetashedidnotbelieve thattheamount,approximately$2million,wasoverlyambitious.Heacknowledgedthatevery additionaldollaraddedtothechallengeofensuringsustainabilityfunding. Ms.HammittremindedthecommitteethatstaffhadprovideditwithcopiesoftheEugene SpringfieldConsolidatedPlanandtheHSCPlanforLaneCounty,whichcontaineddetailsabout theexistingsystemfundinggaps. Mr.Farrsaidhewouldliketoconsiderthecurrentleveloffundingasthebaselineforfunding eventhoughitincludedonetimemoney. Ms.Ortizquestionedwhetherthecommitteehadtheexpertisetospendmuchtimeonthe righthandsideofthecontinuum.ShealsodoubtedtheCityhadthefunding.Shesupported councilreviewoftheoutcomestoensureallthecouncilorswereatthesamelevelof knowledgeandtodeterminewhetherchangesshouldbemadetoensurethecommunitygot themostoutthedollarsithad.Shebelievedthecommitteewaslargelyconfinedtodiscussion oftheGeneralFunddollarsgiventhatthefederalfundingrepresentedpassthroughdollarsand staffwasinthebestpositiontoevaluatesuchthosefundingopportunities. Continuum#3ʹGeographicArea &ŽƌƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐŽĨĚĞĨŝŶŝŶŐƚŚĞĨƵŶĚŝŶŐŐĂƉƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐƵďĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞǁŝůůƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƚŽƚŚĞŝƚǇ ŽƵŶĐŝů͕ƐŚŽƵůĚƚŚĞĨŽĐƵƐďĞŽŶƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƚŽƵŐĞŶĞĐŝƚŝǌĞŶƐĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďǇŝƚǇŽĨƵŐĞŶĞ ĨƵŶĚŝŶŐŽŶůǇ͕ŽƌƐŚŽƵůĚƚŚĞƌĞďĞĂǁŝĚĞƌ͕ĐƌŽƐƐũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽŶǀĞƌƐĂƚŝŽŶ͍ City of Eugene Broader Regional Citizens and Services Conversation – Lane OnlyCounty, Springfield, Others Ms.OrtizsupportedacrossjurisdictionaldiscussionbecauseEugenedidnotoperateina vacuum.Shebelievedsuchadiscussionwouldbemoreinclusiveandrecognizedthefactthat manydollarsthatsupportedhumanservicescameintothecommunityonaregionalbasis. Mr.PryordidnotthinkEugenetaxpayerswouldsupportservicesfornonEugeneresidentsbut heacknowledgedthatEugenewaspartofalargermetropolitanareaandpovertydidnot Hesuggestedthatthecommitteecoulddevelopanapproachthat respectboundaries. supportedEugeneresidentswhilefreeingupfundingforuseinotherareas.Healsosuggested thatifthecommitteesucceededincreatingamodelthatworkedinasustainablemannerit couldbeusedbyotherjurisdictions. Mr.FarremphasizedthefactthatmanynonEugeneresidentscametoEugeneforservices.He didnotknowhowtoaddressthatbuthedidnotthinkitwouldstopgiventhatEugenewasa naturalplaceforpeopletoseekservices. Mr.Fernandezquestionedhowthebroadregionalconversationhappened.Ms.Hammitt suggesteditwouldhavetooccurinthefuturegiventheĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛Ɛshorttimelinebutit couldbepartoftheĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛Ɛrecommendation. Continuum#4ʹFundingLevels ŽŶǀĞƌƐĂƚŝŽŶƐĂďŽƵƚƚǇƉĞƐŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƚŽďĞĨƵŶĚĞĚ͕ƚŚĞŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐƚŽďĞ 'ŝǀĞŶƚŚĞƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐĐ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĚ͕ƚŚĞŐĞŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĂƌĞĂŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞůŝŶĞĨŽƌŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ǁŚĞƌĞŽŶƚŚĞ ĚŽůůĂƌĐŽŶƚŝŶƵƵŵƐŚŽƵůĚƚŚĞƐƵďĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚǇŽƵŶĐŝůĨŽĐƵƐƚŚĞĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ ĞĨĨŽƌƚƐ͍ Find alternate Regional discussion Find sustainable Implement alternate revenues to pay for to identify alternate funding for the revenue source to the existing COE revenues to pay for $150,000 of HSC pay for a portion of human service the existing HSC funding that has or the entire existing budget, including budget, and direct been included in COE human service HSC and direct contracts and other the budget as one- budget, including contracts plus other local government time dollars for HSC and direct COE services (> $2 human services (large several years contracts (< = $2 million)amount, not yet million) defined) Ms.Ortizadvocatedforcouncildiscussionofotherpositivethingsthatcouldbeaccomplished needs.Shecalledfora͞ŵŝŶŝƐĐŽƉŝŶŐ͟of throughregionalleviesdesignedtosupportregional whatservicesmightbeinvolved. Mr.Pryorsuggestedthat,dependingonthesizeoftheneed,thecommitteemighthaveto consideracombinationoffundingmechanismsthatworkedtogetherinawaythatwaslogical totaxpayerstofundservices. Mr.Farrrecalledthedefeatofapastproposalforaonepercentutilityfeetofundaffordable housingandsuggestedthemorecomplicatedtheapproach,theeasieritwasforpeopletofind Hesaidthecommitteeneededtoproceedcautiouslytoavoidbeingaccused waystodefeatit. ofplayinga͞ƐŚĞůůŐĂŵĞ͘͟Hesaidthecommitteeneededtoberealisticaboutwhatitproposed oritwouldbeeasytoscuttle. ingaboutother Mr.Fernandezsaiditappearedthatthecommitteewasinterestedintalk servicesthatcouldbeprovidedandarangeoffundingmechanisms.Hehopedthecommittee hadtimefordiscussionofinnovativeandcreativeapproaches. V.DiscussionofFundingMatrix Ms.Millerreviewedamatrixoffundingsourcesandinvitedsuggestionsforothersources. Mr.BrownsuggestedtheRiverfrontUrbanRenewalDistrictbeaddedtothelistbecauseit couldbeanunconstrainedsourceoffunding.Heprojectedthedistricttohave$900,000in revenueforfiscalyear2013.Heacknowledgedthatthecouncilwouldhavetosunsetthe butthedollarsrealizedcouldfreeupCity districtforthemoneytobespentonotheruses, moneyinotherfundsandtheactionwouldnotraiseĂŶǇŽŶĞ͛Ɛtaxesandwouldreducethe projectedadministrativecostsforthedistrict. RespondingtoaquestionfromMs.OrtizabouttheEugeneWater&ElectricŽĂƌĚ͛Ɛplansfor itspropertyinthedistrict,Ms.Cutsogeorgesaidthatthestatusoffutureriverfront developmentwasuncertainandshewouldneedtoreturnwithmoreinformation.Shesaid staffwouldprovideinformationabouttheyieldfromtheRiverfrontDistrictifclosedtothe committee.Mr.Pryorwantedtheanalysistoincludeotherimpactsofclosingdownthedistrict. Ms.HammittobservedthatthefundingrealizedbyclosureoftheRiverfrontdistrictwouldnot achievetheneededamountofmoney,butitwouldhelp. Referringtothelistofpotentialrevenuesources,Mr.Farrquestionedthepoliticalfeasibilityof arestauranttaxorincometax.Hepointedoutthecouncildidnothavetoplaceautility consumptiontaxontheballotandcouldrealize$2millionannuallyfroma1.5percentutility consumptiontax.Heacknowledgedsuchataxwassubjecttoreferralbuthebelievedthe councilcouldpresentsuchataxtothecommunityinanunderstandablemannerthatcould leadtoitsacceptance. Mr.Pryorsaidthatothercitieshadimposedautilityconsumptiontaxsodataaboutpotential yieldswaseasilysecured.Hesaidsuchataxhadtheadditionalbenefitofbeingastable fundingsource.Whileitwasappealingthatthevotedidnotrequireavote,imposinginsucha mannerrequiredthecounciltobeevenmoreaccountable,responsible,andclearaboutthe communitybenefit.HerecommendedthatstafftalktoMr.Manelaabouttheexperienceof communitiesthathadimposedsuchatax. Committeemembersbrieflydiscussedthepossibilityofarestauranttaxtosupporthuman servicesandacknowledgedtherewouldbecommunityresistancetosuchataxaswellas organizedoppositionfromtherestaurantindustry.Mr.Pryorpositedtheideaofarestaurant taxtiedtotheprovisionoffoodforlowincomeresidentsandreiteratedhispreviousremarks aboutlookingtoacombinationoffundingsourcestounderwritethecostsofthehuman servicessystem.Thecommitteeagreedtoretainthetaxinthematrixforthetimebeingwhile staffgatheredinformationaboutthescopeofneedinregardtofoodforlowincomeresidents andquantifiedtheŝƚǇ͛Ɛcurrentdirectandindirectcontributionsinthatarea. VI.NextSteps Ms.Cutsogeorgesaidstaffwouldalsoprovidethecommitteewithinformationaboutother revenuesourcesconsideredbytheMeetingtheChallengeTaskForceandthoseconsideredby theCouncilSubcommitteeonTransportationFundingSolutionsaswellastakeafirstcutat writinguptheĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛Ɛrecommendationstodate. ngat1:30p.m. Mr.Fernandezconcludedthemeeti (RecordedbyKimberlyYoung) MINUTES CouncilCommitteeonHumanServicesFunding th BascomZŽŽŵͶƵŐĞŶĞPublic>ŝďƌĂƌǇͶϭϬϬWest10Avenue Eugene,Oregon November8,2011 Noon PRESENT:AndreaOrtiz,ChrisPryor,PatFarr,members;AndyFernandez,Library, Recreation,andCulturalServices;CentralServicesDirectorKristieHammitt; TwyllaMiller,SueCutsogeorge,MiaCariaga,CentralServicesDepartment; StephanieJennings,PlanningandDevelopmentDepartment;LoriKievith,Eugene PoliceDepartment.,Severalmembersofthepublicwerealsoinattendance. ABSENT:GeorgeBrown,member. iew I.AgendaRev Mr.Fernandezconvenedthemeetingandreviewedtheagenda. II.FollowupfromOctober25Meeting Ms.Cutsogeorgecalledattentiontoadocumentincludedinthemeetingpacketentitled FollowupInformationfromOctober25Meetingandbrieflyovervieweditscontents,which includedinformationaboutpotentialrevenuesources;informationontheimpactofthe potentialterminationoftheRiverfrontUrbanRenewalDistrict;informationaboutCityfunded humanserviceswithanexustofoodthatmightbesupportedbyarestauranttax;andupdated informationaboutthecontinuumconsideredbythecommitteeonOctober25.Shealsocalled attentiontoadraftrecommendationbasedontheĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛Ɛdiscussionsthatwasincluded inthepacket,aswellasadocumententitledTimingandCoordinationIssues.Therewereno questions. Ms.Ortizarrived. III.MinutesApproval Ms.Ortiz,secondedbyMr.Pryor,movedtoapprovetheminutesofOctober25, 2011,assubmitted.Themotionpassedunanimously,3:0. IV.ContinuedDiscussionofFundingLevelandSources Mr.Fernandezreferredtothedraftstaffrecommendationfoundonpage29ofthemeeting packetproposalasthetopicofdiscussionforthemeeting. Mr.Fernandezalsoreferredthecommitteetoinformationaboutthefundingsourcesincluded asattachmentstothemeetingpacket:1)amemorandumdatedOctober22,2009,tothe ystLarryHillentitledPreviously MeetingtheChallengeTaskForcefromSeniorFinancialAnal IdentifiedGeneralFundRevenueAlternatives;2)AppendixH,FundingAlternativesfor TransportationSystemNeeds;3)adocumententitledFundingSourcesusedbyOtherHuman ServiceProviders;4)adocumententitled199596UtilityConsumptionTax,whichsummarized BallotMeasure2054;and5)adocumententitledRiverfrontUrbanRenewalDistrict Information. Committeemembersdiscussedthepotentialthatitsrecommendationswouldbereferredto theballot.Mr.Pryorsuggestedthecommitteeconsidertakingtwoapproaches,onethat involvedrevenuesourcesthatcouldbeimposedbythecouncilimmediatelyandwouldbe acceptabletothepublicbecauseofthelogicalnexusbetweensourceandservice,andonethat allowedthepublictodecide.Ms.Cutsogeorgeremindedthecommitteethatonlyaproperty taxincreaserequiredapublicvote;theotherrevenuesourcescouldbereferredtothevotersif thecouncilchosetodoso. Ms.OrtizwantedtoknowwhattheCityplannedtodowiththemoneyintheRiverfrontUrban RenewalDistrict.ShepreferredtoreturnthatmoneytotheGeneralFundratherthanaskthe votersformoremoney.Ms.CutsogeorgereportedthatthedistrictpaidforCityparticipationin planningeffortsrelatedtocourthousedistrictandWalnutStation.Ifthecommitteechoseto terminatethedistrict,theCitywouldhavetodecidewhetherandhowitwantedtocontinue thatparticipation. Mr.Pryorsuggestedthecommitteeidentifyatargetforfundingandbuildtherevenuestream onerevenuesourceatatime.ThecommitteecouldproposeterminatingtheRiverfrontUrban RenewalDistrict,whichwouldrealize$300,000,aswellastherevenuerealizedthroughautility feeorcommunityimpactfee.Thatwouldhelpcreatestablefundingaswellasindicateto potentialpartnerstheŝƚǇ͛Ɛwillingnesstoparticipateinalargersolution. Mr.Fernandezproposedthatthecommitteediscusstheprosandconsoftheoptionswitha focusonwhatcouldbeimplementedimmediately,whatwasrealistic,andwhatwasvoter basedasopposedtocouncilinitiated.Hecreatedachartonthewhiteboardtorecordthepros andconsdiscussion. ZŝǀĞƌĨƌŽŶƚhƌďĂŶZĞŶĞǁĂůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ Mr.Pryorsaidthatterminationofthedistrictwouldbeimmediate,realistic,andwaswithinthe ŝƚǇ͛Ɛpurview.SomepeoplewouldbeunhappythattheCitywouldloseplanningcapacity.No publicvotewasneeded,andthedistrictrepresentedanexistingCityresource. ZĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƚĂǆ ranttaxwasnota Therewasgeneralagreementamongcommitteemembersthatarestau realisticoption. hƚŝůŝƚǇĐŽŶƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶƚĂǆ Ms.OrtizbelievedthefacttheCitywouldhavetodependuponEWEBforbillingforthetax representedachallenge.Shealsopointedoutthatdifferingservicelevelsacrossthe communitycouldleadtochargesofinequity.Whileshewaswillingtodiscussit,shebelieved suchataxwouldbereferredandwouldfacewideopposition. Ms.Cutsogeorgereportedthataonepercentutilityconsumptiontaxwouldyieldabout$1.2 million. Mr.Farrbelievedanargumentagainstthefeewasthatithadalreadybeendefeatedatthe gumentinfavorofthefeewasthatitwasbroadbased. polls.Anar Committeemembersagreedsuchafeecouldbeimplementedimmediatelyandwasrealistic.A votewasnotrequired.Mr.Pryorsuggestedanotherbenefitoftheutilityconsumptiontaxwas thatnoonewasexemptedfromthetax. WƵďůŝĐ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ&ĞĞ Thecommitteeagreedabenefitofsuchafeewasthatitwasbroadbased.Ms.Cutsogeorge notedthatsuchafeecouldyield$700,000annually,assumingaflatfeeof$1onallresidential unitsregardlessofunittype.Shealsonotedthatthefeeincludedthesamebillingchallenge mentionedearlierbyMs.Ortiz.Sheconfirmed,inresponsetoaquestionfromMs.Ortiz,that thefeewouldbeappliedtohousingunitsunderthemanagementoftheUniversityofOregon. Mr.Farrbelievedsuchafeewouldfacebroadopposition. Thecommitteeagreedthatthefactthefeewasnewtothecommunitycouldbeconsidereda disadvantage.Thecommitteealsoagreedthatsuchafeewouldbebroadbased,couldbe implementedimmediatelywithoutapublicvote,andwasasrealisticasanyotherrevenue sourceunderconsideration. WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚĂǆĞƐ Thecommitteeagreedthatthedisadvantagesofapropertytaxincreaseincludedthe compressionfactorandthefactitwouldbedifficulttopassapropertytaxincrease.They notedthattheCitywasplanningotherpropertytaxitemsontheballot,suchastherecently discussedrenewalofthestreetbondsin2012.Committeemembersconcludedthataproperty taxincreasewasnotarealisticoption. V.DiscussionofTimingandCoordinationIssues Thecommitteediscussedthepossibletimingforimplementingthevariousoptionsunder considerationandtheneedforcoordinationwithotherefforts,suchastheAmbulance Transportfundingissue,parksoperationsandmaintenance,andafuturestreetbond. Ms.OrtizindicatedthatalloptionswerestillonthetableinregardtotheAmbulanceTransport fundingissue.Sheanticipatedthecouncilwoulddiscusstheproblembeforeinvolvingother jurisdictions. Ms.Cutsogeorgenotedthatthereisadoublemajorityrequirementforpropertytaxmeasures thoseontheballotinMayandNovember. except Mr.Fernandezdeterminedthatthecommitteewascomfortabledroppingarestauranttaxfrom thelistandfocusingonautilityconsumptiontaxorpublicservicefeeandterminationofthe RiverfrontUrbanRenewalDistrict.Thecommitteefurtheragreedthatwhileapropertytax increasemightfacecompetitionfromotherballotmeasures,itcouldbeafuturefunding source.Mr.PryorobservedthatKingCountyinWashingtonStatehadapprovedapropertytax increaseforveteransandhumanservices.Heanticipatedthatanyfuturepropertytaxmeasure wouldhavetobetargetedinsuchaway,andsuggesteditcouldbeimplementedin combinationwithoneoftheotherrevenuesourcesunderconsideration. Ms.Ortizindicatedherpreferenceforautilityconsumptionfeeoverapublicservicesfeebut saidshewaswillingtolookatallthedata. Ms.CutsogeorgesaidtheŝƚǇ͛Ɛcontributiontohumanservicesincludedbothitsfundingforthe HumanServicesCommissionanditsowndirectcontractsforservices,suchasCAHOOTS.She hadnotassumedthat100percentofanynewrevenuewouldbedirectedtotheHSCbut wantedtoconfirmthatwiththecommittee.Mr.Pryorsaidthecommitteeneededto determinewhetherthenewrevenuewouldentirelyreplaceexistingfunding,withaneteffect ofzero,orwasthecommitteetryingtoenhancethatamount.Hehadassumedthebaselevel of$1.3millionwouldcontinueandanythingthecommitteecouldaddtothatwouldbein additiontothatamountoratleastanoffsettoagreaterdegreethanzero.Hewashopingfor somethingoverthecurrent$1.3million. Ms.CutsogeorgeclarifiedthattheŝƚǇ͛Ɛbaseallocationwasslightlymorethan$1millionand theaddonstotaledabout$150,000,allofwhichcamefromtheGeneralFund.Anynew revenuesourcecouldfreeupmoneyintheGeneralFundorhelpreducethedeficit. Mr.FarrbelievedthatareductionintheGeneralFundcontributionwasaseparate conversation.Hepreferredtoconsidernewrevenuesasanadditiontotheexisting contribution.Mr.Pryoragreed.Hewantedtoguaranteethecurrentcontribution.Hepointed outtheCitycouldterminatethedistrictandimmediatelyadd$300,000tothecontributionto achievestablefunding.Autilityconsumptionfeeat.5percentwouldraiseanadditional $500,000andbringthecontributionuptonearly$2million. Ms.Hammittencouragedthecommitteetoconsidertheissueinthecontextofothertax relatedinitiativesbeingconsideredandtheĐŽƵŶĐŝů͛Ɛgoals.Shesuggestedthatthecouncil couldinventoryandprioritizeallCityservices.Ms.Cutsogeorgeremindedthecommitteethat theCitywasfacinga$6millionreductionintheGeneralFundoverthenextcoupleofyears, andanewrevenuesourcemightbeawaytohelpoffsetthosereductions. RespondingtoasuggestionfromMr.PryorthatMs.ƵƚƐŽŐĞŽƌŐĞ͛Ɛremarksimpliedthatthe Citycouldnotguaranteeitsbasehumanservicesfunding,Ms.Hammittsaidnodecisionshad beenmadeinthatregard.However,shebelievedthattheCitywouldneedtolookoutsidethe ŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ͛Ɛresourcesandworkwithitspartnerstomaintainadequatefundinglevelsfor humanservices. Mr.Farrexpressedadesireforadedicatedandsecuredrevenuestreamtofundhuman services. Thecommitteethendiscusseditspreferredfundingtargetandwhatserviceswereincludedin thetarget. Mr.PryordidnotwanttomakeupthefundinggapbyusingGeneralFundmoneyorerode existinghumanservicesfundingtopayforsomethingelse.Hewasinterestedinastable fundingsourceatwhateverlevelthecouncilchose.Thenthecouncilcoulddiscusswhatit coulddotosupplementthatfundingtoreachalevelthatreflectedpastonetimeoremergency allocationsthatcouldnotbesustainedovertime. Mr.Farrwantedtoeliminatetheinstabilityofonetimefundingandaddtothetotalamount. Mr.Pryorsharedthatgoalbutpositedthepossibilitythecommitteemighthavetorevisit currentfundinglevels.Mr.Farrdidnotwantto. RespondingtoaquestionfromMs.Ortiz,Ms.Hammittsaidshehadinterpretedthe ĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛ƐchargeasfindingwaystofundtheŝƚǇ͛Ɛentirehumanservicescontribution, includingstabilizingwhattheCitywasdoingnow. Mr.PryoremphasizedthattheŝƚǇ͛Ɛhumanservicescontributionshouldbestableandshould beincreased.Hesaidhumanservicesagenciesreliedonthecontributionandsufferedwhen theCityreturnedtobaselinefundinglevels.Hesuggestedthecommitteecouldestablisha targetthatincludedthebaseallocationof$1.3millionand$300,000fromterminationofthe district,andaddtothatwithanothersourcethatincreasedthatamountby$700,000.Atthat point,thecouncilstillhadstablefundingatahigherlevelevenifithadtodecreaseitsGeneral Fundcontribution.Ms.Hammittconcurred. VI.PublicComment ErinBonner,ShelterCare,thankedthecommitteeforitsdiscussion.Shespokeofthemany budgetreductionsthatagenciesandtheirclientswereexperiencingandsaidshewasgrateful fortheĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛Ɛwork. JanAho,PearlBuckCenter,alsoexpressedappreciationforthediscussion.Shethankedthe committeeandstafffortheircommitmentandforrecognizingtheimportanceoftheservices fundedtothecommunity.SpeakingtotheCAHOOTSservice,Ms.Ahosaidtheprovidershad fetyandhumanservicesandbelievedthat beentalkingaboutrelationshipbetweenpublicsa relationshipwasveryimportantforthehealthofthecommunity. SteveManelaofLaneŽƵŶƚǇ͛ƐHealthandHumanServicesDepartmentalsoappreciatedthe conversationandthoughttheĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛Ɛworkwasveryimportant.Heappreciatedthatthe localjurisdictionswereworkingtogetheronhumanservicesfunding. Mr.PryorencouragedstafftocontinuetoinvolveMr.Manelaintheprocess. VII.NextSteps ThenextmeetingwasscheduledforNovember22,2011. Mr.Fernandezconcludedthemeetingat1:25p.m. edbyKimberlyYoung) (Record MINUTES CouncilSubcommitteeonHumanServiceFunding th BascomZŽŽŵͶƵŐĞŶĞPublic>ŝďƌĂƌǇͶϭϬϬWest10Avenue Eugene,Oregon November22,2011 Noon PRESENT:AndreaOrtiz,ChrisPryor,GeorgeBrown,PatFarr,members;AndyFernandez, Library,Recreation,andCulturalServices;KristieHammitt;TwyllaMiller,Sue Cutsogeorge,MiaCariaga,CentralServicesDepartment;MikeSullivan,Stephanie Jennings,PlanningandDevelopmentDepartment;PeteDeshpande,LoriKievith, EugenePoliceDepartment.Severalmembersofthepublicwerealsoin attendance. I.AgendaReview convenedthemeetingandreviewedtheagenda. Mr.Fernandez Mr.Fernandezaskedthecommitteetoconsiderthefollowingquestionsandpossibleoptions. Whichcomponentsarerecommendedforstabilization? HSCpayment Basepayment(GeneralFund$1million,CommunityDevelopmentBlockGrant o $0.3million) Additionaldirectedpayments(GeneralFund$0.2million) o DirectCitycontractsandprograms Other? Whatistherecommendedstabilizationmechanism? ReallocateGeneralFundResources Nonewrevenue o PartialGeneralFundallocationwithnewrevenuesource(s) Newrevenuesonly Ifnewrevenue,whichone(s)andwhatisthetargetamountfromeachsource? Utilityconsumptiontax Humanservicesmonthlyfee TerminateRiverfrontUrbanRenewalDistrict Other? II.MinutesApproval Ms.Ortiz,secondedbyMr.Pryor,movedtoapprovetheNovember8,2011, minutesassubmitted.Themotionpassedunanimously,4:0. III.FollowupfromNovember8Meeting Ms.Cutsogeorgeprovidedanoverviewoftheagendamaterialspreparedbystaffasfollowup totheNovember8meeting.InformationincludedtheaverageutilitybillforaEugeneWater& achartshowingtheprosandconsoftherevenuesourcesunder ElectricBoardratepayerand discussion;andadocumententitledEugeneHumanServicesBudget,whichincludedsummary dataregardingCityofEugeneexpendituresonhumanservicesfundingoverthepastsixyears (fiscalyears20072012). Ms.CutsogeorgecalledtheĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛ƐattentiontoafinaldocumententitledFunding TradeoffScenarios,whichsummarizedthreegeneralfundingapproachesforhumanservices thecommitteecouldconsider:1)ReallocateGeneralFundServices;2)ExpandedHuman ServicesCommissionPaymentfromNewRevenueSource;and3)FundEntireHumanServices CommissionPayment(Current+Expansion)fromNewRevenues. IV.ContinuedDiscussion Ms.Cutsogeorgeinvitedcommentonthefundingtradeoffscenarios. Mr.BrownsuggestedthattheCitycoulduseonetimemoneysuchastheEugeneWater& ElectricŽĂƌĚ͛ƐContributioninLieuofTaxes(CILT)paymentortherevenuetheCitywould realizefromtheUniversityofOregonforthevacationofMossStreettofundonetime expenses,suchascapitalconstructionoffacilitiesforveterans.Hesuggesteditwouldalsobe prudenttoholdsomemoneyinreserve.Ms.HammittaskedifMr.Brownproposedtodirectall onetimemoneytoonetimeexpenses.Mr.Brownhadnotgiventhatquestionthoughtand suggestedthequestionofwhatneededtobefundingcouldbereferredtohumanservicesstaff andtheagenciesthatprovidedtheservices.HesaidanotherapproachwasfortheCitytofund thoseservicesmostinneedforashorttermperiodwhileotherfundingwasfound. Mr.Farrbelievedonetimefundingshouldbeusedasalastresortoronanexpenditurethat wouldnotrequireadditionalfundinginthefuture. Ms.OrtizpreferredtoseetheCILTmoneygointotheGeneralFundandthoughtthestreet vacationrevenueshouldgotowardtransportationrelatedexpenses.Sheopposedreallocating GeneralFundmoneysgiventheoutlookforthatfundandadvocatedforamoresustainable overallfundingapproach.ShethoughtitmightmakesensetoterminatetheRiverfrontUrban RenewalDistrict.Shequestionedhowthecouncilcoulddecidewhichagenciesshouldbe assistedgiventhattheywereallinneedofadditionalfunding.Shedidnotsupportthegap fundingapproachmentionedbyMr.Brown. Mr.BrownacknowledgedtheĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛Ɛchargewastofindongoingresources.Hebelieved themostprudentapproachwastokeeptheonetimefundsinreservependingtheupcoming budgetprocess. lforhumanservices Mr.Pryorbelievedthecouncilmustfirststabilizethecurrentfundingleve beforemovingforwardwithanewstablemechanismforadditionalfunding.Heaskedif terminationoftheRiverfrontDistricthadimplicationsforEWEB.Mr.Sullivanrespondedthat EWEBhopedtheCitywouldparticipateinthecostofinfrastructureimprovementswhen redevelopmentofitssitemovedforward.Hehadnoestimatesofthosecosts,butsaidthe districtwastheŝƚǇ͛ƐtoolforparticipationandwithoutthedistricttheCityhadnowayto contribute. Mr.PryorconfirmedwithMr.Sullivanthattheanticipatedinfrastructureimprovementswould beaonetimeinvestmentandsuggestedtheCitycoulduseonetimemoneyforthepurpose. Mr.Sullivanpointedouttheotherlegalandadministrativecostsrelatedtotheissue.He reportedthatEWEBwasreadytopresentitsmasterplantothecouncilforapproval.EWEB hadalreadytestedtheŵĂƌŬĞƚ͛Ɛinterestinthesiteandsomeinterestingdiscussionswere occurring.Hepointedoutthesiterequiredsignificantinvestmentbecauseofitsrelative isolationfromtheremainderofthecommunity,butitrepresentedagreatopportunityforthe community.HereiteratedthatthedistrictwasthetoolfortheŝƚǇ͛Ɛparticipationandthe ŝƚǇ͛Ɛfundingwouldhelpleveraget͛Ɛcontribution.Heemphasizedtheimportanceofa strongdowntowncoretoeconomicdevelopmentandnotedthemasterƉůĂŶ͛Ɛrelationshipto theŝƚǇ͛Ɛvisionforthearea. Mr.PryordidnotthinktheCityneededanongoingsourceoffundstosupportmasterplan implementationgiventheonetimenatureoftheinvestment.Mr.SullivansaidEugenecould usetheapproachtakenbyPortlandtotheredevelopmentoftheSouthWaterfrontDistrict, whereallpartiestotheredevelopmentprojectessentiallywaitedforadevelopmentideato crystalizebeforeallresourceswerecommitted.Thattooksometime.Thecouncilcould modifytheRiverfrontUrbanRenewalDistrictPlantomorefullydescribetheprojectstobe accomplishedandthetimeperiodforimplementation.Inasense,thatmadethefundingone timebecauseoftheprojectsintheplanwereonetimeinnature. Ms.Ortizexpressedconcernaboutthemanyresidentswhoneededhumanservicesandagreed withMr.PryorthattheremightbeotherwaysfortheCitytoparticipateinthemasterplan implementationprocesswithoutmaintainingthedistrict. Mr.BrownbelievedtherewereotherwaystoinducedevelopmentattheEWEBsitewithout ͞ŐŝǀŝŶŐawaytheĨĂƌŵ͟andrecommendedtheCitylookintotheapproachesemployedby Boulder,ColoradoandtheStateofArizonarelatedtoattractingdevelopment.Hebelieved EWEBwascapableofnegotiatingadevelopmentagreementandtheCitycouldhelpt͛Ɛ effortsbyreducingsystemsdevelopmentchargesandstreamliningthepermitprocess. Mr.Farrpreferredtodropdistrictterminationfromconsiderationbecauseitwouldnotprovide muchfundingandwhenitwasgonetheCitywouldnowlacktheabilitytoimpacttheEWEB development.Hepreferredtolooktothetwotaxingmechanismsunderconsideration. Mr.Fernandezreturnedtothethreequestions. Whichcomponentsarerecommendedforstabilization? ThecommitteeacceptedasuggestionfromMr.PryorthatthecommitteerecommendtheCity maintainthecurrentGeneralFundallocationforhumanservicesandincreaseitto$2million usinganewrevenuesource.ThecommitteeacknowledgedthattheGeneralFundelementwas moresusceptibletoreallocation. Whatistherecommendedstabilizationmechanism? Ifnewrevenue,whichone(s)andwhatisthetargetamountfromeachsource? permonthtoraise Thecommitteeagreedtoforwardbothahumanservicesmonthlyfeeof$1 approximately$700,000annuallyandautilityconsumptiontaxofonepercenttoraise approximately$1.2millionannuallytothecouncilforitsconsideration.Thecommitteealso agreedtomentionthepossibilityofterminatingtheRiverfrontUrbanRenewalDistrictaswell asthepossibilityofdirectingtheonetimesourcesthatwerediscussedtowardonetime expenses. Ms.Cutsogeorgesummarizedtherecommendationasincluding$1.35millionfromtheGeneral Fund,$350,000fromCDBGandtheHOMEfunds,with$600,000to$700,000tocomefroma newrevenuesourceintheformofautilityconsumptiontax,humanservicesmonthlyfee, terminationofthedistrict,oracombinationthereof,aswellasopportunitiesforonetime dollarstooffsetonetimeexpenses. Mr.PryoraskedstafftocommunicatetotheBudgetCommitteethatthecommitteewantedto securethebasepaymentintheGeneralFundtothedegreepossible.Therewasgeneral concurrence. ThecommitteeacceptedasuggestionfromMr.Farrthatitstopfundingprioritieswerethe utilityconsumptiontaxandmonthlyhumanservicesfee,withtheothermechanismsaslesser priorities.Mr.Pryorsuggestedthatstaffprovidethecouncilwithalltherevenueoptionsthe committeediscussed. V.FinalizeRecommendation Ms.CutsogeorgesaidshewouldfinalizetheĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛Ɛrecommendationandcirculateit amongmembersbeforeforwardingittothecouncilfordiscussiononJanuary11,2012. VI.NextSteps Ms.OrtizrecommendedthatstaffgiveEWEBa͞ŚĞĂĚƐƵƉ͟abouttheĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛Ɛ recommendations. Mr.Fernandezconcludedthemeetingat1:15p.m. (RecordedbyKimberlyYoung) AppendixB Best & Worst Outcomes City Council Subcommittee on Human Service Funding October4,2011 BestOutcomes Claritytoprioritizefunding StartestablishinganappropriaterolefortheCityanddevelopacommunitywidesolution thatalignswithfinancialgoals ClearstrategyforŝƚǇ͛ƐroleinHumanServicesandcreativewaystoimplement Findanddevelopasolution,andparticipantsfeelthatitwastimewellspent FindawaytofundtheincreasedneedforHumanServices Logical,sustainableandadequateleveloffundingthatĚŽĞƐŶ͛ƚimpactotherservices ŽŶ͛ƚlookattheissueinavacuumʹdevelopgoodrecommendations Developastableleveloffundingsothatcostsinotherareasareminimallyimpacted Activelevelofpartnershipwithotherjurisdictions HumanServicessavingsʹcostsintermsofotherservices DevelopaplantorecommendlongtermHumanServicesFunding NomoreonetimefundingdiscussionsofHumanServicesatBudgetCommitteemeetings Lookbroad,seecreativesolutions Regionalpartnerships Staff/CouncilincreaseknowledgeofprovidersofLatinoservicesdirectassistancetothose agencies Partnershipstoincludebusinesscommunities,anddevelopaplantoblendallaspectsofthe community Identifynewfundingstreamsandimplement,consideraffordablehousingandEugene homelessnessissues SoliddirectiontoCouncil>servicegoals,budgetpriority DevelopasustainablelongtermbudgetsolutionforHumanServices,affordablehousing WorstOutcomes ŽŶ͛ƚfindawaytofundtheneedforhumanservices Nothingchanges RevenuesdecreasesandthereisareductioninHumanServicessupport Reducedresourceswillleadtoanincreasedlevelofcompetition SurroundingcommunityĐĂŶ͛ƚsustain,andtherewillbeaninfluxofneedtoEugene Groupdecidesthattheyhavedonealltheycan Givingup HumanServicesisbottomlesssetofneeds Developmentofpermanent͞ƵŶĚĞƌĐůĂƐƐ͟ʹcosts NocleardirectionforfundingHumanServices NosolutionfoundʹBudgetCommitteeaskscontinue Noaction Increaseinlowincomefamilies Latinofamiliesignoredandbasicservicesnotmet DevelopareportthatĚŽĞƐŶ͛ƚgetused Lessmoney Heightenedlevelsofpoverty Communityconflictwithimpactedpopulations Cometoinconclusiveplace Inadequatefundingofsocialservicesforthemostvulnerable Indecisionandproblemgetsworse ThisgroupĚŽĞƐŶ͛ƚhavethetools,informationfordecisionmaking AppendixC (XJHQH·V+XPDQ6HUYLFH%XGJHW With Six Year History HumanServiceFundingʹDetailsforthePastSixYears FY12Budget GeneralFundOtherFundsTotal HSCPayment BasePayment$1,035,000$350,000$1,385,000 DirectedPayments*186,0000186,000 ARRAforHomelessPrevention&RapidRehousing000 TotalHSCPayment1,221,000350,0001,571,000 DirectContracts&Programs CAHOOTS600,0000600,000 SVdPHomelessCamping89,000089,000 CDBG&HOMEforaffordablehousingcapital02,168,0002,168,000 Miscellaneous**5,00097,000102,000 TotalDirectContracts&Programs694,0002,265,0002,959,000 Totals$1,915,000$2,615,000$4,530,000 FY11Budget GeneralFundOtherFundsTotal HSCPayment BasePayment$1,035,000$350,000$1,385,000 DirectedPayments*398,0000398,000 TotalHSCPayment1,433,000350,0001,783,000 DirectContracts&Programs CAHOOTS250,2940250,294 SVdPHomelessCamping89,000089,000 ARRAforHomelessPrevention&RapidRehousing0276,610276,610 CDBG&HOMEforaffordablehousingcapital02,648,1862,648,186 Miscellaneous***5,00050,00055,000 TotalDirectContracts&Programs344,2942,974,7963,319,090 Totals$1,777,294$3,324,796$5,102,090 FY10Budget GeneralFundOtherFundsTotal HSCPayment BasePayment$1,035,000$350,000$1,385,000 DirectedPayments*448,0000448,000 TotalHSCPayment1,483,000350,0001,833,000 DirectContracts&Programs CAHOOTS250,2940250,294 SVdPHomelessCamping89,000089,000 ARRAforHomelessPrevention&RapidRehousing0276,610276,610 CDBG&HOMEforaffordablehousingcapital02,550,7152,550,715 Miscellaneous***5,00049,00054,000 TotalDirectContracts&Programs344,2942,876,3253,220,619 Totals$1,827,294$3,226,325$5,053,619 *LimiteddurationpaymentstoHSChavebeenforstabilization,Station7,homelessinitiatives(ShelterCare,SVdP),Safe&Sound. **GeneralFundforBlueRibbonCommittee,ProjectHomelessConnect,LTDtokens.HOMEforcommunityhousing,securitydepositassistance. FY09Budget GeneralFundOtherFundsTotal HSCPayment BasePayment$1,015,000$350,000$1,365,000 DirectedPayments*516,0000516,000 TotalHSCPayment1,531,000350,0001,881,000 DirectContracts&Programs CAHOOTS255,2820255,282 SVdPHomelessCamping87,200087,200 ARRAforHomelessPrevention&RapidRehousing000 CDBG&HOMEforaffordablehousingcapital02,371,6002,371,600 Miscellaneous***5,00049,00054,000 TotalDirectContracts&Programs347,4822,420,6002,768,082 Totals$1,878,482$2,770,600$4,649,082 FY08Budget GeneralFundOtherFundsTotal HSCPayment BasePayment$992,000$350,000$1,342,000 DirectedPayments*506,0000506,000 TotalHSCPayment1,498,000350,0001,848,000 DirectContracts&Programs CAHOOTS250,2760250,276 SVdPHomelessCamping85,175085,175 ARRAforHomelessPrevention&RapidRehousing000 CDBG&HOMEforaffordablehousingcapital02,466,6932,466,693 Miscellaneous**55,00050,806105,806 TotalDirectContracts&Programs390,4512,517,4992,907,950 Totals$1,888,451$2,867,499$4,755,950 FY07Budget GeneralFundOtherFundsTotal HSCPayment BasePayment$970,700$350,000$1,320,700 DirectedPayments*405,7200405,720 TotalHSCPayment1,376,420350,0001,726,420 DirectContracts&Programs CAHOOTS242,9860242,986 SVdPHomelessCamping83,340083,340 ARRAforHomelessPrevention&RapidRehousing000 CDBG&HOMEforaffordablehousingcapital02,478,9402,478,940 Miscellaneous**50,00051,170101,170 TotalDirectContracts&Programs376,3262,530,1102,906,436 Totals$1,752,746$2,880,110$4,632,856 *LimiteddurationpaymentstoHSChavebeenforstabilization,Station7,homelessinitiatives(ShelterCare,SVdP),Safe&Sound. **GeneralFundforBlueRibbonCommittee,ProjectHomelessConnect,LTDtokens.HOMEforcommunityhousing,securitydepositassistance. AppendixD Revenue Information MeetingtheChallengeTaskForce ReviewofGeneralFundRevenueAlternatives January22,2010 UtilityConsumptionTaxʹRecommendedasSecondChoice DescriptionAtaxonutilityservicesusedbyresidentsofthe City;leviedontheamountofconsumptionor establishedasaflatfeeperaccount. MeetingtheChallengeActionAsanalternativetotheRestaurantTax,aUtility ConsumptionTaxof1.5%thatwouldnet$2 millionannuallyafteradministrativecostsand adjustmentsforlowincomeandhighvolume users,wasrecommendedbytheTaskForce. LegalAuthority&RestrictionsUnderhomeruleauthority,Oregoncitiescan enactaconsumptiontax. PrecedenceTheCityofAshlandimposesanElectricUtilityUser Tax.Thetaxisdesignedasasurchargeof25%on monthlyenergyuse.Thistaxgeneratesrevenue tofundgeneralCityservicessuchasPolice,Fire, Planning,BuildingandSeniorPrograms,offsetting propertytaxes.Thistaxgeneratesapproximately $2.6millionannually. neproposeda1% InMarch1996,theCityofEuge utilitytaxtofundlowincomehousingwhichfailed atpublicvote;61%noto39%yes. RevenueYield&StabilityIfthetaxwerestructuredasapercentage surchargeontheuseofelectricity,naturalgas, water,stormwaterandwastewaterarough estimateforpotentialyieldsareasfollows: 1.0%=$2.2million 1.5%=$3.3million 2.0%=$4.5million dentialuser Themonthlyimpacttotheaverageresi ofelectric,water,stormwaterandwastewater servicesisestimatedbelow: 1.0%=$1.25 1.5%=$1.87 2.0%=$2.50 Impacttocommercialusersisnotprovidedas commercialconsumptionvariesgreatlyby business.Residentialconsumptionaccountsfor approximately60%oftheelectricretailrevenue collectedbyEWEB. Aportionofthetaxrevenuewouldbeneededto offsetadministrativecostsfortheutilitiesto collectandremitthetax. Anannualallocationcouldbesetasidetohelp mitigatethefinancialimpactsofthetaxonlow incomehouseholds.Implementationofthese itemswouldreducetheyieldestimatesgiven. RevenueAdequacyBasedontheestimatedannualyield,thisrevenue sourcewouldmeetsome,butnotalloftheCityof EugeneGeneralFundneeds. AdministrativeEffortIfthetaxwereimposedonutilitycompaniesbased ongrossreceiptswiththepresumptionthatthe taxispassedontothecustomer,theongoing administrativeeffortwouldbeminimal. Anadministrativefeeforcollectingandremitting thetaxtotheCitywouldbenegotiatedwithEWEB e,ifanadministrative andNWNG.Asanexampl feeof5%ofthenettaxduewereinstituted (similartotheadministrativefeeinplacefor transientroomtax)theforegonerevenuewould beapproximately$110,000atthe1%taxlevel. TheCityhastalkedwithEWEBintherecentpast lingagentfortheStreetUtility aboutbeingthebil Fee.IfboththeStreetUtilityFeeandtheUtility ConsumptionTaxmoveforward,CityandEWEB staffwouldneedtoagreethatbothchargeswould beplacedontheEWEBbill. TimelineThistaxcouldbeimplementedbyFY12.Itis assumedthatsuchataxwouldbereferredtothe voterspriortobeingimplemented. Incidence&EquityAllutilityusersinthecitywouldpay.Anincrease wouldbeagreaterfinancialburdentolowincome householdswhohavelittletonodiscretionary income. Additionally,whenthetaxisestablishedasa percentofconsumption,largeutilityusersare affectedmorethanotherusersinthecommunity. atesomeportionof Developingaprogramtoreb thetaxtolargeuserscouldmitigatecreatinga barriertoeconomicdevelopment. NexusAnenergyconsumptiontaxwouldbeleviedacross thecommunity.Thecommunityasawhole benefitsfromthefullrangeofservicesprovidedby GeneralFundRevenues. ConsistencywithCouncilGoals&PoliciesAUtilityConsumptionTaxwouldbeconsistent withCouncilgoalsandpolicies. Fairness&PoliticalFeasibilityInthecurrenteconomicclimate,giventhe unemploymentrateinourregionʹtheremaynot becommunitysupportorthepoliticalwilltotax energyconsumptioninourcommunityʹ particularlyasthistaxwouldhaveagreaterimpact onlargebusinesses,lowincomeresidentsorthose whoareoutofwork. SustainabilityImpactAutilityconsumptiontaxwouldnotcreatean undueburdenonfuturegenerations.Thetax couldleadtoreducedconsumption,asustainable practicewhichisahighpriorityvaluefortheCity. MeetingtheChallengeTaskForce ReviewofGeneralFundRevenueAlternatives January22,2010 (XYZ)PublicServiceFeeʹRecommendedasSecondChoice DescriptionApublicserviceutilityisadefinedgroupofrelatedservicesthatare generallyavailabletoandarebroadlyaccessedbyoccupantsof propertyinacity.Utilityfeesaretypicallysettorecoverpartorallof thecostsoftheservice,andarebilledtopersonswhooccupyorhave ,nottheownersofproperty.Unlike useofdevelopedproperty electricity,water,stormwaterandsewerutilityservices,thisfeewould fundservicesthatarenotdelivereddirectlytothepropertyandarenot directlymeasurable.Thepurposeofthefeeistoprovidestablefunding toensuretheserviceremainsavailabletothecommunity. MeetingtheChallengeActionAfteraRestaurantTax,theTaskForcerecommendedaPublicService Feeofbetween$5and$10amonthtopayforservicesthatarenot deemedhighpriorityservicessuchaspublicsafety. LegalAuthority&RestrictionsUnderKƌĞŐŽŶ͛ƐHomeRuleprinciplemunicipalitymaychargefeesfor services.Revenuesarenotrestricted.InJanuary,2007,theOregon SupremeCourt,in<ŶĂƉƉǀ͘ŝƚǇŽĨ:ĂĐŬƐŽŶǀŝůůĞ͕upheldtheCityof :ĂĐŬƐŽŶǀŝůůĞ͛Ɛpublicserviceutilityfee.Thiscaseclarifiedthatcityfees forutilityservicesmaybechargedtoapersonwiththerighttooccupy theymaynotbebasedonpropertyownershipor oruseproperty,but valueofproperty. PrecedenceTheCityofEugenecurrentlydoesnotchargeanypublicserviceutility fees.Autilityfeeforstreetoperationsandmaintenance,withrevenue goingtotheRoadFund,hasbeenunderdiscussionforanumberof yearsbuthasnotbeenimplemented. SeveralmunicipalitiesinOregondochargepublicserviceutilityfeesfor parks,streetoperationsandmaintenance,policeand/orfireservices. Jacksonvillecurrentlychargesautilityfeeof$20permonthon theoccupantofeachunitofdevelopedproperty.Thisfee providesabout50%ofthefundingneededfor:ĂĐŬƐŽŶǀŝůůĞ͛Ɛfire services. Medfordcharges$2.60persinglefamilyhomepermonth, producing$1millionannuallyforpoliceandfireservices. Medfordalsochargesaparksutilityfeeof$2.87permonthper singlefamilyhome. charges$3perresidentialunitpermonthforpublic Newberg safetyservices. chargesautilityfeeof$15permonthper ShadyCove residentialornonresidentialunit,dedicatingtherevenueto policeservices. NumerousOregoncitieschargeutilityfeesforstreetoperation andmaintenance. RevenueYield&StabilityYieldwillvarywiththefeelevel.Publicserviceutilityfeerevenue usuallysupplementsotherresources.Feesaresetwithconsiderationof theimpactonthecustomeraswellasthetargetrevenueyield.Utility feerevenuesarestablebecausethefeeisleviedbroadlyacrossthe communityandthetypicalbasisforthefee(occupancyanduseof property)isfairlyinelastic. RevenueAdequacyApublicserviceutilityfeecouldproduceadequaterevenuetoreplace netGeneralFundexpendituresforselectedpublicservice.GeneralFund serviceareasmostsuitableforapublicserviceutilityfeearethosethat arebroadlyavailabletoallresidents,forwhichindividualconsumption t oftheservicesisnoteasilymeasurableandthathavethegreates incidenceofuseaccordingtotheŝƚǇ͛ƐCommunitySurvey. InEugenetheseinclude: Parks&OpenSpace:(includesaquatics)netFY10GeneralFund supportis$7.2million;theCommunitySurveyshowsthatparks &openspaceserviceareusedby78%ofcityresidents. Library:netFY10GeneralFundsupportis$7.1million,andan additional$2.8millionisfundedbytheLibraryLocalOption LevywhichwillexpireinFY11;theLibraryisusedby70%ofcity residentsaccordingtotheCommunitySurvey. InFY09inEugenethereareroughly58,000developedpropertyunits (53,000residentialand5,000nonresidentialunits).Ifaflatutilityfeeof $1permonthwereimposedonallunitsand100%collectionis assumed,itwouldprovideabout$700,000grossrevenueannually.If thefeewasleviedonaperunitbasisandwasincludedonEWEB nratewouldbehighandannual customerbills,thecollectio administrativecostscouldbeintheneighborhoodof$200,000.With theseassumptions,thefeewouldneedtobeabout$10.60perunitper monthtofullyreplaceGeneralFundsupportforParks&OpenSpace servicesincludingaquatics.TofullyreplaceGeneralFundandthesoon toexpireLOLevysupportforLibraryservices,themonthlyfeewould needtobeabout$14.50perunit. AdministrativeEffortMostcitiescollectutilityfeesaspartofasewer,stormwaterorwater utilitybillingforapropertyunit.InEugene,thiswouldrequire cooperationbyEWEB.Iftheutilityfeeisleviedonaperunitbasisandis includedonexistingEWEButilitybillsannualcostsofadministration, andenforcementcouldberelativelylowatabout billing,collection $200,000.TheCityhastalkedwithEWEBintherecentpastaboutbeing thebillingagentfortheStreetUtilityFee.IfboththeStreetUtilityFee andthePublicServiceUtilityFeemoveforward,CityandEWEBstaff wouldneedtoagreethatbothchargeswouldbeplacedontheEWEB bill.Administrativecostscouldbemuchhigherandthecollectionrate loweriftheCityhadtodevelopandimplementabillingprocess separatefromEWEB.Inaddition,administrativecostswouldlikelybe higherifthebasisofthefeerequiresdevelopmentandmaintenanceof propertyspecificdataonwhichtobasethefee. TimelineBecausethisfeewouldbeanew,unfamiliarapproachforfunding GeneralfundedservicesinEugene,substantialtimewouldbeneeded toallowforfullreviewanddiscussionbytheCityCouncilaswellasby membersofthecommunity.Itwouldbereasonabletoexpectareferral ofautilityfeeproposaltotheballot.Additionaltimewouldbeneeded todeterminebilling,collectionandenforceprocesses.Itwouldlikely takeatleasttwoyearstoimplementanewpublicserviceutilityfee. Incidence&EquityAlloccupantsofdevelopedpropertywillbenefitfromcontinued availabilityofthepublicservices,andallcouldbeequitablychargedthe utilityfee.Publiclyownedornonprofitownedfacilitiesincluding dormitoriesandgrouphousingwouldsubjecttothefee.TheCitycould negotiatewhatfeelevelisappropriateratherthanapplyingastandard rate,orthesefacilitiescouldbesubsidizedthroughanexemptionwhich wouldshifttheirsharetootherpayers. NexusThetypicalbasisforexistingpublicserviceutilityfeesinOregonisthe occupancyoruseofadevelopedproperty,andthefeeistypicallylevied asaflatfeeonresidentialandnonresidentialunits,oronresidential unitsonly,dependingontheservicefunded.Thecostofthefunded serviceisdistributedasasimpleaverageamongalloccupiedunits.This basisrecognizestwokeypoints:(1)thegeneralityofthenexusbetween thepublicservicefundedbythefeeandthecommonbenefitsprovided bytheavailabilityandbroadusageoftheservicebyoccupantsof thelackofpractical developedpropertyacrossthecommunity,and(2) waystobasethefeeonactualmeasuredusageofthepublicservice. Otherpossiblebasisforlevyingthefeebesidestheperunitbasis includefloorareaorstreetfrontageofunits,numberoragesof occupants,typeofunit,etc.Butthesewouldbearbitrarymeasures unrelatedtoactualusageofthefundedservice,andwouldnotincrease equity.Developingandmaintainingthiskindofpropertyspecificdata maybedifficultandwouldlikelyhaveahigheradministrativecost withoutachievingagreaterdegreeofequityinrelatingthefeeto dservice. individualusageofthefunde ConsistencywithCouncilThisfeeisconsistentwithCouncilgoalsandpolicies. Goals&Policies Fairness&PoliticalFeasibilityThesuccessesofcitiesthathaveimplementedutilityfeesforpublic servicesdemonstratesthatsuchfeescanbeseenasfairandcanbe politicallyfeasible.However,asanewideafortheCityofEugene,itis likelythatsubstantialdiscussionwouldberequiredbeforeaconsensus onfairnessemergesandpoliticallyfeasibleisdetermined. SustainabilityImpactThefeewouldhavenoadverseimpactonsustainabilitygoals. RiverfrontUrbanRenewalDistrictInformation Thisattachmentincludessomefollowupinformationrequestedatthelastsubcommittee meetingabouttheimpactsfromterminationoftheRiverfrontUrbanRenewalDistrict. RiverfrontDistrictFinancialInformation AttachedtothismaterialareexcerptsfromtheCity/URAFY12budget.Thesepagessetout I.5),impactofthedistricton informationonthebackgroundofthedistrictanditsgoals(page theoverlappingtaxingdistricts(pageI.12)andthebudgetandactualexpenditures(pagesI.23 toI.24). Ascanbeseenontheoverlappingtaxingdistrictimpactstatement(pageI.12),thetotalreve nueinthedistrictinFY11was$790,000,ofwhich$300,000camefromtheCityofƵŐĞŶĞ͛Ɛ permanenttaxrate.Thisistheamount($300,000)thatwouldbeavailabletotheŝƚǇ͛ƐGeneral Fundintheeventthatthedistrictwasterminated. ThebudgetinformationonpageI.23setsouttheamountofbalanceavailable,whichisthe amountthatcouldbeappropriatedforspendinginthedistrictonprojectsincludedintheplan. TheamountforFY12is$4.8million.Ifthedistrictwereterminated,theCitywouldreceivea portionofthatamount,andtherestwouldbedistributedtotheotheroverlappingtaxing districts.TheamounttobedistributedwouldbebasedontheŝƚǇ͛Ɛshareoftheoverallincre ment,whichisabout40%,sotheCitywouldreceiveapproximately$1.8millionfromdistrict terminationonaonetimebasis. ThebudgetinformationonpageI.23alsosetsouttheactualspendingforthepasttwofiscal yearsinthedistrictonadministrativecosts.ForFY90andFY10,theamountwasapproximately $180,000peryear,whichwassignificantlylessthantheamountsbudgetedinthoseyears.The budgetforFY12is$250,000.TheĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛Ɛadministrativebudgetisusedtosupporttheproject activitiesoccurringinthearea. RiverfrontDistrictProjectActivities TheRiverfrontUrbanRenewalDistrictsupportseffortstostrengthennaturalresourcesandto stimulateappropriatedevelopmentfortheeastportionofdowntownandalongtheWillamette RiverfromEWEBtoWalnutStation.Threesignificantrecenteffortshaveincludedthe CourthouseDistrict,theEWEBriverfrontpropertyredevelopmentandmasterplanwork,and theWalnutStationarea.ConceptsregardingthemillraceareincludedintheworkwithEWEB andtheCourthouseDistrict.TheCourthouseGarden,locatedonUrbanRenewalAgency ownedproperty,isapartofthisarea.Otherinitiativesarealsoinprocess,includingworking withpropertyownersandinteresteddevelopersthroughouttheUrbanRenewalDistrictto encouragedesireddevelopment.BasedontheRiverfrontUrbanRenewalPlan,developmentin theDistrictisintendedtoplayacriticalroleintherevitalizationoftheentireregion,and specificallytostrengthentheconnectionbetweendowntown,theriver,andtheUniversity. UUrban Reenewal Aggency Ovverview RRiverfrontUrban Rennewal Distrrict TThe Riverfroont District wwas created iin 1985 to asssist in finanncing public infrastructurre. The origginal ddistrict encommpassed neaarly 148 acrees adjacent too and includding the Univversity of OrrHJRQ¶V5LYeerfront RResearch Parrk site. In FYY04, the Citty Council ammended the boundaries of the districct to add anoother 30 aacres, bringinng the total aarea to approoximately 1778 acres. Thhe current booundaries of fthe district are sshown in thee map. TThe district pplan was revviewed and aamended by tthe City Couuncil in Marrch 2004. MMajor changes in the aamendment iincluded chaanging the naame of the ddistrict from WKH³5LYHUIrront Researcch Park Urbaan RRenewal AreeD´WRWKH ³³Riverfront UUrban Renewwal AAUHD´H[WHnnding the ttermination ddate to 2024, eexpanding annd revising tthe llist of project activities, pproviding neew cost eestimates of the projects to bbe undertakeen, establishiing a mmaximum inndebtedness oof $$34.8 millionn, and providding oother information about tthe impact of thee amendmennts. MMajor goals in the RRiverfront DDistrict for FYY12 aare: Collaborate with EWWEB to revieww the master plan for the doowntown riverfronnt area. Promote redevelopmment of publicc and privatee properties in the area aaround the WWayne Morsee Federal Courthouuse. Improve connectionss between thee core of dowwntown, thee riverfront aarea and the University oof Oregon. Urban Renewal Agency Overview Division of Tax Impact on Overlapping Taxing Jurisdictions in FY11 Estimate, Net of Discounts and Delinquencies Taxing District Type of Tax Downtown Riverfront Total School Taxes School District 4j Permanent Tax Rate $575,000 $205,000 $780,000 School District 4j Local Option Levy 0 65,000 65,000 Lane Community College Permanent Tax Rate 75,000 30,000 105,000 Lane ESD Permanent Tax Rate 30,000 10,000 40,000 Total School Taxes $680,000 $310,000 $990,000 General Government Taxes City of Eugene Permanent Tax Rate $850,000 $300,000 $1,150,000 City of Eugene Library Levy0 10,000 10,000 Lane County Permanent Tax Rate 150,000 55,000 205,000 Total General Government $1,000,000 $365,000 $1,365,000 Bonded Debt Taxes City of Eugene Bonded Debt $40,000 $50,000 $90,000 Lane County Bonded Debt 10,000 5,000 15,000 School District 4j Bonded Debt 60,000 50,000 110,000 Lane Community College Bonded Debt 0 10,000 10,000 Total Bonded Debt $110,000 $115,000 $225,000 Totals $1,790,000 $790,000 $2,580,000 Note: Although local property taxes to schools are reduced as a result of the division of taxes, school budgets are only minimally reduced, all else being equal, because schools are funded through a per pupil formula from the state, and any loss in local property taxes is made up by an increase in state fundinI. The chart does not take into account any effects of Measure 5 compression on school taxes. Source: Lane County Assessment and Taxation, Table 4e, Detail of Urban Renewal Plan Areas by Taxing District, Tax Year 2010-11. Maximum Indebtedness Information Oregon Revised Statutes require that each urban renewal district that receives property tax revenue LQFOXGHD³PD[LPXPLQGHEWHGQHVV´limit in their urban renewal plaQ³0D[LPXPLQGHEWHGQHVV´LVD required spending cap for all property tax expenditureVRYHUDSHULRGRIWLPH³0D[LPXPLQGHEWHGQHVV´ is not a legal debt limit. It is more like a spending limit. Adopting a maximum indebtedness figure does not authorize or obligate the Agency to spend money or enter into debt. Within the maximum indebtedness limitation, the Agency Board has the ability to fund projects over time, either with cash or by issuing debt. Certain expenditures are included in maximum indebtedness and certain expenditures are excluded. For instance, interest on debt is excluded, but cash payments for projects and administrative expenses are included. Expenditures made from sources other than tax increment revenues are not included in the spending limit, such as Downtown Revitalization Loan Program funds. In addition, interest on debt is not included in maximum indebtedness, nor is the refinancing of existing indebtedness. URA Riverfront General Fund (821) To account for tax increment revenues received for the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. Resources are used for improving the condition and appearance of the Riverfront District. FY09FY10FY11 BudgetFY11 BudgetFY12 ActualActual7/1/201012/31/2010Adopted Resources: Beginning Working Capital 2,131,1872,899,2503,517,9503,524,4864,150,986 Revenues Taxes668,665757,478780,000780,000825,000 Rental23,19000063,000 Miscellaneous254,11753,97625,00025,00026,000 Total Revenues 945,972811,454805,000805,000914,000 Non-Departmental Interfund Transfers00000 Total Non-Departmental 00000 Total Resources3,077,1593,710,7044,322,9504,329,4865,064,986 Requirements: Department Operating Planning and Developmen177,909186,218267,500267,500249,144 t Total Department Operating 177,909186,218267,500267,500249,144 Non-Departmental Balance Available004,055,4504,061,9864,815,842 Total Non-Departmental 004,055,4504,061,9864,815,842 Total Requirements177,909186,2184,322,9504,329,4865,064,986 Ending Working Capital 2,899,2503,524,486000 URA Riverfront Capital Projects Fund (823) To account for costs of constructing and improving capital facilities in the Urban Renewal Riverfront District. Financing is provided by transfers from the Riverfront General Fund and interest on investments. FY09FY10FY11 BudgetFY11 BudgetFY12 ActualActual7/1/201012/31/2010Adopted Resources: Beginning Working Capital 219,322170,547157,318161,965163,515 Revenues Miscellaneous4,4142,6501,0001,0001,000 Total Revenues 4,4142,6501,0001,0001,000 Total Resources223,736173,197158,318162,965164,515 Requirements: Total Capital Projects 53,18911,232141,500141,500141,500 Non-Departmental Balance Available0016,81821,46523,015 Total Non-Departmental 0016,81821,46523,015 Total Requirements53,18911,232158,318162,965164,515 Ending Working Capital 170,547161,965000 MeetingtheChallengeTaskForce ReviewofGeneralFundRevenueAlternatives January22,2009 LocalOptionPropertyTaxLevyʹNotRecommended Description Alocaloptionlevyisapropertytaxthatispaidbyallpropertyowners withintheCitylimits.TheCitycouldimposealocaloptionlevyfor capitalprojectsforupto10years,orforotherpurposesforamaximum offiveyears. MeetingtheChallengeLocaloptionlevyisnotrecommendedbecausebystatutethefundingis Actionlimitedto5yearsforoperatingpurposes.Therevenuefromthelevyis notongoingandshouldnotbeusedtopayforongoingexpenses. LegalAuthority& Neworadditionalpropertytaxesmustbeapprovedbyamajorityofthe Restrictions peoplevotinginaprimaryorgeneralelection. Precedence Propertytaxesareusedextensivelybylocalgovernmentsacrossthe UnitedStates.TheCitycurrentlyimposesafouryearlocaloptionlevy, forlibraryserviceimprovements.TheCityhasnotproposedanycapital localoptionleviesinthepast. RevenueYield&StabilityTofund$5,000,000ofoperatingcostswithafiveyearlocaloptionlevy, theCitywouldhavetolevyapproximately$5,664,000peryear.The typicalsinglefamilyhomewithataxableassessedvalueof$158,447 wouldpayabout$0.49/$1000ofAV,or$77.67peryearoverthefive yearperiod. Localoptionleviesaresubjecttothe$10/$1000ofrealmarketvaluetax ratecapforallgeneralgovernmentsunderMeasure5.UnderMeasure 50,localoptionleviesarethefirsttobereducedintheeventoftaxrate compression.Thismeansthatifthecombinedtotalleviesforthe overlappinggeneralgovernmentsexceedtheMeasure5cap,anylocal optionlevieswouldbeproportionallyreduceduntilthetaxratelimitis satisfied. RevenueAdequacyAsubstantialportionoftheŝƚǇ͛Ɛrevenueneedscouldbemetinthe shorttermviaalocaloptionlevyʹifpassedbyvoters. Alocaloptionlevyisnotnecessarilyalongtermsolutionasfuture fundingwouldbecontingentuponvotersrenewingthelevyinfuture yearstocontinuetherevenuestream. AdministrativeEffortPropertytaxesareadministeredbytheCounty.TheCountypreparesthe taxbills,collectsthefunds,andremitstheappropriateamounttothe Cityonaregularbasis.EnforcementisperformedbyboththeCounty andtheCityintheforeclosureprocess. TimelineAlocaloptionlevycouldbeplacedontheballotinMayof2010tobe implementedinFY11. Incidence&EquityThetaxispaidbyallpropertyownerswithinCitylimits.Propertyowners includebusinessandresidences.Businessesmaychoosetopassthetax ontotheircustomers. NexusThelocaloptionlevyisabroadbasedtaxacrossallpropertyownersin thecommunity,andnonresidentpropertyowners.Membersofthe communitybenefitfromandenjoyabroadrangeofservicesprovidedby GeneralFundresourcesincludingpublicsafety,parks,andcultural services. ConsistencywithCouncilTheCityCouncilhasseveralfinancialpoliciesstatingthat,totheextent Goals&Policiespossible,nonrecurringresources,suchasalocaloptionlevy,shouldbe usedfornonrecurringexpensesʹnottofundongoingservices. Councilgoalsalsoincludeadesiretofosteraffordablehousing.An levywouldbecontrarytothatgoal,asitwould additionalpropertytax raisethecostofhousing. Fairness&PoliticalThepropertytaxisaproportionaltaxonthevalueofrealandpersonal Feasibilitypropertyforbothbusinessesandresidences.Itdoesnottakeinto accounttheabilityofthetaxpayertopaythetax.Therearenumerous exemptionsfromthepropertytaxdesignedtopromoteavarietyof policygoals,includingsomedesignedtolessentheimpactonlow incomeownersandtenants. Thepropertytaxisunderstandabletothevoters(asopposedtoanew formofuserfeeortaxes),makingitpoliticallyfeasiblefromthat standpoint. eEugenearea Localoptionlevyproposalshavehadmixedsuccessinth inrecentyears.Therehavebeensixlocaloptionlevyproposalsonthe ballotfromEugeneorLaneCountysinceMeasure47passed,andthree ofthosehavebeensuccessful.Councilmembershaveexpressed dissatisfactionwithheavyrelianceonpropertytaxesinvariousforumsin recentyears. SustainabilityImpactAlocaloptionlevywouldnotcreateanundueburdenonfuture generations. MeetingtheChallengeTaskForce ReviewofGeneralFundRevenueAlternatives January22,2010 RestaurantTaxʹRecommended DescriptionTaxonsalesoffoodandnonalcoholicbeveragesservedby restaurantsinEugeneandpaidbythecustomersbasedontheirbill. MeetingtheChallengeActionTheTaskForcerecommendeda5%RestaurantTax. LegalAuthority&RestrictionsUnderhomeruleauthority,Oregoncitieshavethepowertoenacta salestaxwithoutstateenablinglegislation. PrecedenceCurrently,therearetwocitiesinOregonthatcollectthistax.The CityofYachatscollectsa5.0%taxthatappliestomostprepared foodsanddispensedbeverages,notincludingalcoholicbeverages. YachatsCityCouncilvoted41infavorofthetaxonNovember6, 2006;collectionofthistaxstartedinJulyof2007.Taxproceedsare dedicatedtodebtpaymentsonthewastewatertreatmentplant. Theordinancethatimposedthetaxdoesnothaveasunsetclause, andcontainsaprovisionallowingtheCityCounciltoincreasethe taxrateinthefutureafterapublichearing. taxonallpreparedfood. TheCityofAshlandcollectsa5.0% Currently,80%ofthetaxgoestowardsdebtpaymentsforpast upgradestothesewagetreatmentplantand20%goesforparkland purchases.Thetaxwastosunsetin2010.On November3,2009,Ashlandvotersvotedtoextendthe5%taxto 2030,58.8%to41.2%infavor.Oneofthefactorsinthisvotewas thatthewastewaterrateswouldhavegoneupby55%hadthetax notbeenrenewed. InMarch1993,theCityofEugeneproposeda3.0%restauranttax failedatpublic tobeusedasageneralrevenuesource;theproposal votewith60%opposedand40%infavor. RevenueYield&StabilityBasedonestimatesdevelopedforthe1993proposedrestauranttax andassuming4%averagegrowth,a1.0%restauranttaxwould generateapproximately$2.8millionin2009.Ifleviedat5.0%rate, thistaxwouldraiseapproximately$14millionannually. Determininghowmuchofthisamountwouldbepaidbyoutof townvisitorsvs.Cityresidentswouldrequireadditionalresearch,as thisinformationisnotimmediatelyavailable. Revenueswouldfluctuatewithchangesinpersonalincomeandthe economicenvironment. RevenueAdequacyBasedupontheestimatedannualyield,thisrevenuesourcewould meetsome,butnotalloftheCityofƵŐĞŶĞ͛ƐGeneralFundneedif imposedat1.0%level.Ifimposedatahigherrate,thistaxmay meetalloftheGeneralFundneeds,dependingontherate. AdministrativeEffortIfpatternedafterƐŚůĂŶĚ͛ƐprocessandtheŝƚǇ͛Ɛ TelecommunicationsTax,businesseswouldremitthetaxquarterly totheCity.Aftertheinitialregistrationofalleligiblebusinesses, stafftimewouldberequiredtopostpayments,workwithbusiness ownersandenforcethetaxuniformly.Dedicatedstaffwouldbe tion.Aneffortwillneedtobemadeto neededtoperformthisfunc clearlyidentifyfoodsandbeveragesthataresubjecttothistaxto makecomplianceeasierforlocalbusinesses.Aportionofthe proceedsmayberetainedbytherestaurantstohelpdefraythe costsassociatedwithcollectionsandremittanceactivities. TimelineThistaxcouldbeimplementedbyFY12.Thetaxwouldmostlikely bereferredtothevotersforapproval.Leadtimewouldalsobe necessarytoestablishadministrativeandenforcement mechanisms. Incidence&EquityDesignedtobeasingle,proportionalrate.Inthepoliticalcampaign of199293,itwasarguedthatthistaxisregressivebecauselow incomehouseholdsspendahighproportionoftheirincomeon ͞ĨĂƐƚĨŽŽĚ͘͟However,accordingtotheEconomicResearch Service/USDA,͞dŚĞwealthiesthouseholdstendtospendagreater shareoftheirfoodbudgetoneatingawayfromhomethantheleast wealthyhouseholds:47%versus36%in2008ʹalmostdoublethe shareoflowincomehouseholds." Arelativelylargeproportionofthistaxwouldbepaidbyvisitors, similartothetransientroomtax. NexusThistaxwouldbepaidbybothresidentsandnonresidentsofthe City.Bothresidentsandnonresidentsuseandbenefitfromawide varietyofcityservicesincludingpublicsafety,parksandcultural services. ConsistencywithCouncilGoals&ArestauranttaxwouldbeconsistentwithCityCouncilgoalsand Policiespolicies. Fairness&PoliticalFeasibilityInthecurrenteconomicenvironment,anadditionaltaxonfoodand beveragesmaybeseenasunfairbysomesegmentsofthelocal community,includingbusinessesandthoserepresentinglow incomepopulations.Oppositiontothistaxislikelyfromindustry groupssuchastheOregonRestaurantAssociation. SustainabilityImpactArestauranttaxwouldnotcreateanundueburdenonfuture generations. AppendixE Where to Find More Information Where to Find More Information CityCouncilSubcommitteeonHumanServiceFundingWebsite:eugeneor.gov/HSSC Thiswebsiteincludesallofthe^ƵďĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ͛Ɛmaterials,includingagendasand backgroundmemosandreports,minutesandpresentationmaterials. EugeneSpringfieldConsolidatedPlan:availableontheCityofƵŐĞŶĞ͛Ɛwebsite(eugene or.gov)underDepartments>>Planning&Development>>CommunityDevelopment>>HUD ConsolidatedPlan Thisdocumentisafiveyearstrategicplanforhousingandcommunitydevelopmentinthe EugeneSpringfieldarea. HumanServicesPlanforLaneCounty:availableontheHSSCwebsite ThisdocumentwaspreparedfortheHumanServicesCommissionanditisalongrange blueprintforhumanservicesinthecommunity. MultiYearFinancialPlan(MYFP):eugeneor.gov/budget Thisdocumentisanannualcompilationofsignificantunfundedfinancialchallengesand opportunitiesthattheCityofEugeneisexpectedtoencounteroverthenextsixyears. MeetingtheChallengeTaskForceReport:availableontheHSSCwebsite,includedinthe meetingpacketfor10/4/11 TheCityManagercreatedtheMeetingtheChallengeTaskForcein2009inordertoget inputfromacitizencommitteeonserviceprioritiesandpossiblenewrevenuesourcesto solvebudgetchallenges.