Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> e options regarding the basic structure of the budget. He said that the coun- <br /> cil will need to spend a lot of time in the upcoming year educating community <br /> citizens on fiscal affairs and determining what they want local government to <br /> look like. In order to handle the extensive public communication process, <br /> Mr. Gleason recommended an increase in Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) <br /> staff. <br /> Mr. Gleason suggested that the City begin conserving financial resources and <br /> recommended that the council initiate an administrative spending authority to <br /> roll forward approximately $600,000 for next year. He said that the need to <br /> hire additional positions should be examined closely, but noted that he does <br /> not recommend instituting a hiring freeze because the costs associated with <br /> it often exceed the benefits (i.e., covering additional workload with staff <br /> overtime is often more expensive than hiring a new employee). <br /> Mr. Gleason said that the success of Measure 5 demonstrates citizens' intent <br /> to force changes in school funding. However, inherent in that decision is an <br /> implicit agreement to forfeit some decision-making authority to the State <br /> Legislature. In sum, the compounding effect of the measure will be about how <br /> local government will deliver its services in the future and what services it <br /> will provide. <br /> Referring to a point made earlier in which Mr. Gleason reported that Measure <br /> 5 would not impact all City operations but only those areas which rely on <br /> General Fund support, Ms. Bascom pointed out that although one portion of <br /> City operations may be doing better than another, employees from the non-im- <br /> e pacted areas should not be getting a higher level of compensation. Mr. <br /> Gleason concurred. <br /> Mr. Rutan requested a brief report on the major components of Measure 5 and <br /> potential impacts on City operation. Mr. Gleason agreed to provide the re- <br /> port and said that some areas of potential impact would be tax increment <br /> financing, Bancroft funding, State-shared revenues, property tax, and some <br /> user fees. <br /> Ms. Ehrman said that because of financial uncertainty surrounding Measure 5, <br /> the issue of library funding might need to be postponed. Mr. Rutan said that <br /> the additional information that he requested is necessary before making any <br /> decisions about the library. <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Gleason said that Measure 5 did <br /> not pass in Eugene. <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 7, 1990 Page 2 <br />