05/16/1990 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Holmer suggested the inclusion of a guideline which would state that those activities in which the council has had previous and continual involvement would be given priority consideration for funding. He also recommended that the council have a specific monetary allocation in its budget to be used for unplanned funding requests. Mr. Boles offered his support for having budgetary money earmarked specifically for unplanned funding requests. He also suggested that each councilor and the Mayor be allotted a specific portion of this budgetary allocation for funding appropriation on an individual basis. Monetary appropriation would be regulated, in part, by the proposed evaluative criteria. In this way, each councilor would have the opportunity to place monetary support behind those issues of most importance. Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Boles said that this money would be in addition to money currently set aside by the Budget Committee. Ms. Schue agreed that a specific amount of money should be set aside to deal with unplanned requests for funding, but said she is not comfortable with the concept of having individual council "allowances." 'Mr. Gleason noted that the council may have difficulty finding justification for Mr. Boles' suggestion within the Oregon Budget Law requirements. However, it might be possible to establish this type of policy through a protocol of tradition. Mr. Green cautioned that this policy be used as a spending guideline rather than a barrier against all monetary spending. Referring to one of the proposed evaluative criteria which suggests that consideration be given to whether an actiVity will directly support one or more of the current council goals, Mr. Holmer said that he does not believe that each council goal is of equal importance and should, therefore, not be given equal weight in evaluation. He also noted that guideline 5, which states that the activity would not occur unless approval of the funding request is granted, is not necessarily relevant and should not be included. Ms. Ehrman suggested that the council receive information from staff on the feasibility of Mr. Boles' concept of having individually appropriated budgetary money. Mr. Holmer pointed out that a potential benefit of having a limited amount of money for individual allocation would be an increased assurance that councilors were marshaling monetary support for those ideas of the greatest importance. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, that money be appropriated in the budget for expenditure on unplanned events. The motion carried unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 16. 1990 Page 4