BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

WORK SESSION

May 30, 2006

10:00 a.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 3/14/07

 

Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Faye Stewart present.  Peter Sorenson was present via telephone.  County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

 

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

 

None.

 

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

None.

 

3. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE

 

Dwyer reported there was a tragic automobile accident and people had lost their lives.  He noted within a week six people had lost their lives in traffic accidents.

 

4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

 

Per ORS 192.660 (2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with counsel on litigation.

 

5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

 

a. Announcements

 

Van Vactor reported that he and Green attended the AOC Conference in Pendleton.

 

6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

 

a. DISCUSSION/Income Tax and Charter Amendment Issues.

 

Jim Johnson suggested keeping this as simple as possible, to think about wining the election and how they are going to attract voters who are going to vote yes.   

 

He discussed eight issues. (Copy in file).

 

Johnson indicated issue one is public hearings.  He asked the Board what they wanted to have the hearings on.

 

Dwyer stated they shouldn’t have a public hearing until they know what they are talking about.  He said if the decisions include putting out a proposed measure for the voters, then they should have a public hearing  before they put it out.

 

Green agreed with the date.  He commented that if they wanted to do something by November they couldn’t push this out too far.  He asked what the absolute deadline was.

 

Wilson replied July 10 was the last date to have the ballot measure placed on the ballot for a charter amendment only.  She said it gives the explanatory statement committee 12 days to write the statement.

 

Morrison wanted public hearings.  She agreed to having them on June 14 and 28.   

 

Stewart wanted the public hearing on June 14.  He was supportive of a charter amendment and income tax amendment.

 

Sorenson stated they should have a public hearing on what the Board is proposing.  He didn’t think the voters would pass an income tax proposal.  He thought they would pass an amendment to their charter limiting the power of the Board to impose an income tax.

 

Dwyer was concerned about the unknowns.  He said it is difficult to convince the voters.  He said they don’t know the depth of their crisis yet.  He wanted to limit the charter.   

 

There was consensus to keep the public hearings on June 14 and June 28.

 

Issue 2 - Stabilizing the general fund.

 

Dave Garnick, Budget and Financial Planning, discussed attachment C, which showed the projected deficit for the Fin Plan. (Copy in file).

 

Johnson summarized that there might not be complete agreement.  He said they agreed to stabilize the general fund by reducing the property tax to ninety-five cents instead of one dollar, either by charter or by ordinance.

 

Issue 3- Secure Rural Schools

 

Johnson asked if they wanted to address the replacement funding in the charter amendment.  He asked if they don’t want it in the charter amendment, if they want to set the rate high enough to permit covering the loss.

 

Dwyer wanted to cover it enough to permit them to continue providing the services that were provided to the citizens.  He noted that a cap of 1.5 percent would do that without reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act.

 

Johnson asked if this needed to be in the charter amendment.

 

Morrison thought they needed to address the issue.

 

Stewart didn’t think it needed to be part of the charter amendment, but the rate needed to be high enough.

 

Dwyer was a “no” on the charter amendment.

 

Sorenson didn’t think it was necessary to put the information in the charter amendment.

 

Green said they needed to find a way for the voters to understand the issue.

 

Johnson reiterated that for Issue 3,  there will be no Secure Rural Schools in the charter amendment.

 

Issue 4 – Low Income Exemption

 

Johnson asked if they wanted to have an income tax as an exemption or deduction, and if the Board wanted to adjust the cap to allow that to happen.

 

Garnick indicated that Attachment D showed a $20,000 deduction (Copy in file).

 

Dwyer recommended an exemption instead of a deduction.   

 

Sorenson and Stewart agreed.

 

Johnson reiterated that there should be a floor of $20,000 and it would be given as an exemption.

 

Issue 5 – Property Tax Relief

 

Jim Gangle, Assessment and Taxation, suggested keeping it simple.  He was concerned about compression if they reduce the rate.

 

Dwyer asked what system could they adopt to allow relief without dealing with compression and other entities taking up the space under the cap.

 

Gangle said they should issue a tax credit.

 

Wilson explained a credit is a credit on the income tax.  She said if someone paid property tax and paid no income tax, they would not get a benefit.

 

Sorenson wanted to keep it as simple as possible.

 

Morrison agreed.

 

Johnson reiterated that the Board wanted to have a property tax relief in the form of a credit and it would apply to all classes of property.  He indicated it would be at ninety-five cents per thousand.

 

Issue 6- How to Address the Cap

 

Johnson said they could go to 1.5 percent.

 

There was consensus for that.

 

Wilson suggested a tax rate of 1.47 percent would be enough to produce the amount they are projecting.  She said they know their projections are based on different assumptions.  She indicated that 1.5 percent might produce more than what they need. She said when they do an income tax ordinance, setting the income tax rate will be a blind attempt to set the right rate to get the right amount of money.  She said the more general they make the rate, the more flexibility they have.  Her recommendation is to leave the cap and the income tax rate at no finer than a tenth of a percent.  

 

Johnson said there was consensus for that.

 

Issue 7 – Ordinance Enactment

 

Johnson explained they could have an income tax ordinance enacted outright. He added the ordinance could be enacted conditionally on the outcome of a charter amendment or they could do a charter amendment first and come back later.

 

Dwyer wanted to do a charter amendment.  He didn’t mind adopting an ordinance that incorporated everything they discussed.

Johnson thought they could write the ordinance, reach consensus and vote on it, but they don’t enact it so everyone has the facts on what is included in the ordinance.

 

Russ Burger, Sheriff, encouraged whatever needs to be done to fix the problem as a Board.  He said if that meant enacting an ordinance he would encourage it.  He liked setting a limit and then having the voters vote on it.

 

Doug Harcleroad, District Attorney, stated the reason for this was because they have a need for public safety services.  He said they still have a $25 million need for additional public safety services.  He commented that they need a solution that has broad consensus among the community.  He wanted to test the voters with polling.  He also wanted to let the business community know there is a need for public safety and their help.

 

Wilson said they were in a timing position where if they wanted to conditionally enact the ordinance, the actual ballot title could have language that reflected that historic fact.  She said if they choose not to conditionally enact the ordinance before they place the ballot title on the ballot, they could do a conditional enactment in July so the opportunity exists for the voters to see what their intent is.   

 

Sorenson was hesitant to enact an ordinance because there are so many unknowns.  They don’t know whether or not the Secure Rural Schools funds will be available.  He said a reason to have the charter amendment  limit the power of the Board of Commissioners to put forth an income tax is to show the voters that is the only direction this Board believes is the direction they should move.  He said they don’t know the amount because even though they could fill the current hole, they couldn’t enact that.  He said it would be a major change in taxation philosophy for the community and they are giving the opportunity to the public to limit the Board of Commissioners.  He thought they could get the public to vote for this.

 

Stewart believed they should enact the ordinance conditionally based on the success of the charter amendment.  He wanted to be clear and up front as to the intent.  He said they have a problem today with public safety and they need to get it fixed.  He said if they can’t get the message to the citizens to help them fix it, then they won’t think there is a problem and won’t want it fixed.

 

Sorenson said they don’t know how much the reduction will be so he didn’t think it was fair to make major cuts.  He said they don’t know how long the Secure Rural Schools funding will be.  He said next year they will have more information and then they could tell the voters what they would be offering for the level of taxation.

 

Harcleroad explained if they had a conditional measure and they had the limitation measure on the ballot and it did not pass, then they would have to decide on what cuts they would have to make  

 

Dwyer said they agreed to limit the rate and to provide a low-income exemption of $20,000.  He said they would give across-the-board property tax relief from 95 cents to a dollar that would be a credit and not a refund. They agreed it would discuss public safety and the charter amendment part would limit the rate and dedicate the tax to public safety. He said they haven’t agreed upon on whether the ordinance will be tied to the charter amendment.  He wanted to keep it as simple as possible.  He wanted to have the ordinance independent and let the voters know what the money is going to be used for and how it is going to be allocated.

 

Green wanted to have a public hearing but not adopt the ordinance.

 

Morrison wanted the ordinance drafted so when the charter amendment is looked at, they are clear about it.  She gave up having the ordinance voted on with the charter.  She thought this was a compromise.  She thinks the resolution needs to be stating what the ordinance would look like.

 

Sorenson said they should move on a charter amendment comparable to what Dwyer discussed with a fixed rate that the Board couldn’t go beyond.  He wanted to have a low-income exemption and a credit on property taxes paid by Lane County income tax payers.  He wasn’t sure they could give the public real choices to make the vote on the charter amendment conditional upon the passage of the ordinance.  

 

Stewart wanted it to be clear that if they enact an ordinance, that is what it is.  He didn’t want any game playing.

 

The Board recessed at 11:55 a.m.

 

The Board went back into session at 1:30 p.m.

 

With regard to Question 1, Wilson heard a consensus they are going to have a hearing on the charter amendment regarding an income tax.  She said on Question 2 they are looking at hearings on June 14 and June 28.  She noted that with Question 3, the Board does not want the income tax to stabilize the general fund.  They are going to use property tax relief as the methodology for stabilization of the general fund.  She said they would be doing that by reducing the property tax relief.   

 

With regard to Question 4, Wilson said the Board didn’t want Secure Rural Schools replacement funding identified in the charter amendment.  She said with Question 5, the Board wants the income tax rate set high enough to accommodate that component. She noted with Question 6 the Board wants a floor of a low-income exemption of $20,000 and they wanted it as an exemption.   

 

With regard to Question 8, Wilson said the income tax cap would be set to accommodate the cost of the deduction.  With Question 9, she thought the Board said property tax relief for all property tax payers.  She indicated the reality is if they are going to do it as a credit, it would be possible that there is a property tax payer who does not pay the income tax.

 

Wilson noted with Question 10 the Board wanted the credit, and on Question 11 the Board didn’t want refund checks for property tax relief.  She said they wouldn’t address renter’s relief because it is covered with the exemption.  She added they are not going to put property tax relief in the charter amendment, it will be described in the ordinance.  She noted the amount of property tax relief is 95 cents per thousand.  She added that amount could be adjusted.  She indicated that the income tax cap would accommodate the cost of the property tax relief.

 

With regard to Question 16, she said they picked a tenth of a percent and they are still under discussion for Issue 7.  She wasn’t clear about Questions 17 to 19.  She added they still have questions 20 to 24 that recap what is to be written in the charter amendment.

 

Johnson recalled that during the lunch hour, he, Wilson, Garnick and Van Vactor discussed the issue of the possibility of a referendum.  He said whether they enact or not affects the referendum.

 

Wilson said whenever the Board enacts an ordinance, the citizens have the right to collect signatures on a petition to refer it to the voters.  She said under the constitution, they are entitled to a full 90 days to do that.  Assuming citizens were to collect the signatures, once they know it is going on the ballot, then the ordinance is suspended until the outcome of the election. She said if they have enacted an ordinance and begun collecting monies during the 90-day window,  they might risk having to give it back.  

 

Van Vactor explained if the Board chooses to only do a resolution of intent to adopt an income tax ordinance, and doesn’t plan to enact one or does it after the charter vote, staff would recommend a sequencing where the effective date of the income tax is pushed out to let the referendum period go through.  He commented that it could impact the first year’s revenue.

 

Johnson thought with Question 18, the Board didn’t want to conditionally enact an ordinance.  He noted that with Question 19, they would have a charter amendment first, followed by an ordinance.

 

Sorenson suggested moving ahead with a public hearing on their request to the voters to limit the tax power of the Board of Commissioners.  He said they should be given the text of a measure that they are contemplating to enact by ordinance or by referendum.  He said they need to find out if they have the buy in from the community to move forward.

 

Johnson said the Board was not in support of Issue 7, but going for a public hearing and having an ordinance prepared.

 

Stewart commented if they did the best job they could to craft something that they could speak highly of, then they have five months to convince the voters to vote for this.  He wanted to hear from the public on this.

 

Johnson explained that Issue 8 deals with the language in the charter.  He said Question 20 asked if they wanted a limitation on the Board’s authority.  He said Question 21 deal with the cap of 1.5 percent.  He indicated Question 22 asks what type of public safety dedication.

 

Dwyer wanted a limitation on the Board’s authority.

 

Green wanted to leave the dedication for public safety.

 

Johnson thought they could put the property tax relief language in the charter.  He heard a majority of the Board didn’t want to have it.  He thought the shorter version was the one they supported.

 

Stewart wanted to keep it as simple as possible, limit the rate and dedicate the funding for public safety.

 

Johnson said the Board was okay with Question 21, the 1.5 percent.  He said Question 22 dedication was for meth.  He said the Board was comfortable with how they were going to handle the Secure Rural Schools.

 

Van Vactor noted that property tax relief was not in the charter.  He thought there would be an issue about the additional money being raised with the property tax.  He said it is important to have the companion ordinance available.

 

Wilson indicated for the public hearing of June 14, she will clean up the language of Attachment B so it has the short charter amendment and it will add the one sentence about dedication language.  She said she will work with Harvey Rogers to write changes into the ordinance to add the low-income exemption to personal and non-resident income tax and to add a property tax credit language under the administration piece.  She noted the ordinance has a tax rate of one percent.  She said she will work with Dave Garnick to confirm whether that is the right percent to bring forward on the basis of what they know.

 

b. FOURTH READING, DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION/ Ordinance No. 1-06/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 4 of Lane Code to Add Provisions for a Lane County Public Safety Income Tax, to Adopt Administration and Collection Provisions, To Renumber Differential Tax Provisions, and to Set an Effective Date (LC 4.500 through 4.571) (NBA & PM 1/4/06,1/11/06 & 5/1/706)  

 

MOTION: to approve a Fourth Reading and Setting a Fifth Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance 1-06 for the Public Hearing on June 1 at 1:30 p.m. and June 28 at 6:30 p.m.

 

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

7. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Dwyer wanted to have a work session on the Public Health Building.

 

8. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

 

None.

 

9.. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

 

None.

 

10. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

 

None.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 2:30 p.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary