05/23/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e- e could be performed from either the capital or the operating side of the budget. He added that the resource system was $400,000 to $800,000 short, not including any add-backs. Ms. Smith entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Obie questioned what the impact of a sales tax or "Son of 3" would be. Mr. Gleason responded that he did not believe the public would willingly support any measure that would so drastically affect the schools and other City systems. He said that a risk was involved with increasing any tax. He said he could handle a cash-flow issue in a November or March election differ- ently than not addressing the issue at all. He stressed that the City has been hamstrung by the State agenda for the past three years. Ms. Smith asked if staff's recommendation to move forward as expressed during the previous work session still held true. Mr. Gleason said it did and that staff was considering the effect of an election on the City. Mr. Obie com- mented that the council needed to develop a decision process. Ms. Smith agreed that basic decisions must be made. She said the council was aware of the distinctions among the various proposals and that it must decide what it desired and then develop its own proposals. Mr. Holmer said that property taxes had increased over the past five years and that he found it difficult to add any additional tax burden just to fund programs of lower priority than those in the current budget. He agreed with Ms. Schue, stating that the questions involved were whether to restore programs and whether to accept the forecast schedule. While he recognized that person- nel must be compensated at the CPI rate, Mr. Holmer stated that to project or budget salary increases at five percent with the add-ons, increments, and promotions would create expectations that he could not support. With the exi stence of "Son of 3, II he suggested that the counc1 1 not make any fi rm decisions on additional taxes unless it was prepared to support program restoration. Addressing the issue of the City infrastructure, Mr. Holmer said that staff had projected increasing expenditures starting in 1987. He sug- gested that the council wait until after the November election to obtain a better picture of the City's economic future. Ms. Schue said she would be willing to establish dates and related issues after she had determined the council's basic philosophy. She said the City has known that revenues will not cover the desired expenditure levels. She said the council must communicate to the public the financial constraints faced by the City. Ms. Nichols agreed that the public must be informed, adding that the council had not yet reviewed the pOSSible proposals to be included in the November election. She said the publiC must be informed of the status of the City budget, the projections chosen by the council, and the level of services to be expected. She suggested that a full disclosure of alternative revenue sources be performed, followed by a public hearing to obtain public opinion. Then the council can make a decision on a plan to be presented to the voters. She stressed that the City should not allow the state-wide election to make decisions for the residents of Eugene. In response to a question on the possible timing for this program, Ms. Nichols said the council should perform a review of the proposals by the end of the summer MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 1984 Page 2