06/25/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

by Ms. King were possibly low, stating that SHO had used a small multiplier in - developing the figures. She felt that the Hult Center was a community asset, attracting tourists and businesses to the area, being a focal point for local artists, and generating revenue for the local economy. She stated that SHO supported the acceptance of the FY85 Budget and agreed with the comment of Andrew Porter of the New Yorker magazine in that Eugene was lucky to have the Hult Center. W. H. Byrd, 2293 Birch Lane, stated that he was a self-employed builder and had been a taxpayer for 30 years. He stated that he also volunteered as a tour guide in the Hult Center. He encouraged the council to approve the FY85 Budget and its funding for the center. Mr. Byrd stated that he had guided numerous groups through the Hult Center, including tourists from Eugene's sister city of Kakegawa and a group from International Mobility. He stated that all the groups were greatly impressed by the facility and were now ambassadors for the City of Eugene. Speaking in opposition to the proposed budget: Mary Bentsen, 956 West 16th Avenue, stated that she would not complain about the Hult Center comments previously made but felt that the center was the focal point of an issue which may divide the city. Referring to the Alexander Grant and Company study, she stated that the council had addressed some of the recommen- dations such as ticketing and staffing, but she asked v/hy it had not addressed the long-range issues involving the Performing Arts Commission, the Eugene Arts Foundation, the suggested moratorium on past debts by the local performing artists groups, the room tax to the Hult Center and the Visitors Convention e Bureau, the one-percent restaurant tax, and the distribution of funds. Ms. Bentsen said the community was questioning the fairness of the Hult Center Support while the city was experiencing a recession, particularly in light of service cuts in the areas of the library, pools, and fire protection. She stated that she supported the continued operation of the Hult Center but urged the council to carefully address the funding issue. She felt that the center had become an elitist service because of the high ticket prices. Ms. Bentsen asked why the Hult Center Task Force recommendation regarding a funding proposal had not been instituted and why the Grant study recommendations had not been followed. Regarding the proposed moratorium on the past debts to the Hult Center, she asked how the City would ensure current payments to the center would be made. Andy Thompson, 2910 Ferry Street, stated that he was also concerned with the funding of the Hult Center, adding that he had previously proposed that the center be mothballed. As an alternative, he suggested that the City Council designated new special revenues from the businesses which profit most from the Hult Center activities. Mr. Thompson stated that he was not convinced by the comments regarding the money brought into the local economy by the center, stating that the majority of residents did not receive any of that money. With regard to the support shown by local artists for the center, he felt that such support was a minority opinion. Mr. Thompson agreed with previous testimony that the council was not following through with its promise that the center would be self-sufficient rather than depending on General Fund revenues. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 3