04/02/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- e - the Hult Center shortfall. Ms. Wooten stated that the solution could also include further cuts in the operations of the center. Mr. Obie stated that the report outlined potential revenue areas but did not imply any priorities within those areas. He stressed that the task force had a great concern with the continued reliance on property taxes and the need to develop alternative revenue sources. Councilor Obie then reviewed four areas listed on Page 2 of the memorandum which outlined the direction for the continued work of the task force. He felt that the EAF wanted to live up to its commitment in the terms specified in the memorandum. In response to a question, Councilor Wooten stated that the tax package mentioned in Item 5 would be applied to the entire City budget, explaining that the task force was assuming that the Hult Center would become a part of the City if the new revenue sources were developed. Mr. Obie, referring to the council's financal planning session, stated that it was the concensus of the council to address the entire deficit. Ms. Wooten added that the shortfall has created problems for all the involved groups. While the numerous groups have realized that they cannot support the center, they have also realized that the center must remain open and accessible. In response to a question, Mr. Gleason stated that staff was still discussing the options to recommend to the Budget Committee on the $125,000 to be alloca- ted from City funds, suggesting that it might come from the capital side of the revenue sharing funds. He stated that the entire $477,000 would come from the capital side if the proposed tax package were not accepted. Mr. Hansen stated that no consensus had been reached by the task force that the funds would be taken from the capital side. He did not feel that the $125,000 was worth the effort of the EAF this year; he hoped that the foundation would regroup for the following year. Mr. Ball said he understood that the EAF would provide a "best effort" toward funding, with the EAF receiving space and services in the center, if its contribution were reduced to $0. Mr. Gleason agreed, adding that the foundation had contributed $2.5 million on the capital side and $600,000 on the operating side of the budget in return for which the City was providing them with 4,500 square feet of space in the center. In response to a question, Mr. Obie stated that the task force could address the issue of whether the space provided would continue regardless of the contribu- tion made by the EAF. He said one recommendation had suggested an income stream based on the three years necessary to recoup the "best effort," but the task force was not suggesting that the EAF abandon the center relative to future capital needs. Councilor Holmer stated that some clarification was needed on the differences between FY 1984-85 and FY 1985-86. Stating that the council had charged the City Manager with presenting a balanced budget for FY 1984-85, he questioned why additional revenue was needed if the two budgets would be balanced, even with the additional $477,000 shortfall the first year and $450,000 the second. Ms. Wooten responded that the City will need additional revenues during the next five to ten years to maintain present service levels. She stated that MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 2, 1984 Pa ge 3