Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />M I NUT E S <br />EUGENE CITY COUNCIL <br />,June 9,1975 <br /> <br />Regular meeting of the <br />Council President Neil <br />in the Council Chamber <br />Williams, Ray Bradley, <br /> <br />Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by <br />Murray in the absence of Mayor Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on June 9,1975 <br />with other Council members present: Gus Keller, Wickes Beal, Tom <br />D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. <br /> <br />I - Public Hearings <br />A. 1975-76 Budget - $39,665,964 <br />Assistant Manager explained that the budget at this meeting would be the subject of <br />public hearing only to get it into order for adoption at the June 23 Council meet- <br />ing. It was anticipated, he said, that the modifications proposed would not change <br />the estimated tax levy from that for 1974-75. <br /> <br />Gary Long, acting city manager, explained the changes made in the budget since <br />budget committee consideration - appropriation to Library capital improvement to <br />restore funds appropriated in the previous year but not carried over, funds trans- <br />ferred from the sewer utility fund to finance parking improvements at the airport, <br />and other modifications consisting of only bookkeeping transactions. <br /> <br />Public hearing was opened. <br /> <br />I-A-l <br /> <br />Torn Hoyt, 460 Palomino Drive, explained that because of his interest in the business <br />tax recently proposed, he was prompted to review the city's budget proposals. As <br />a result, he was asked to organize a group representing the business community [he <br />explained he was not speaking for the Chamber of Commerce or any special business <br />interests] to review the 1974-75 city budget to become familiar with the budgeting <br />process. The intent was to inform the group with the hope they could make proposals <br />that might result in increasing the productivity of city employes or eliminate non- <br />essential programs, the primary objective being to assist the city from the business- <br />man's point of view. With review of the prior year's budget as background, he said, <br />the group attended 1975-76 budget committee meetings. Since they experienced the <br />same frustrations experienced by the budget committee, they were not able to make <br />any specific recommendations with regard to this budget, but after spending as much <br />time as they were able as unpaid public participants, they did have some suggestions. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />.e <br /> <br />Mr. Hoyt said they found it imperative for the citizen to become informed in order <br />to present constructive criticism. There was consensus that the present budget <br />process needed changing, recognizing there were plans at this time for discussions <br />with the new city manager. upon his arrival to determine how to improve the process <br />and provide for greater input from the elected representatives. He said another <br />suggestion was careful consideration of the impact of new programs before they were <br />initially authorized, an evaluation of priorities with existing programs and impact <br />on future budgets in competition for tax dollars. He cited the $73,000 appropriation <br />in the present budget for neighborhood associations. He liked the concept and en- <br />dorsed the associations' contributions to city government, but he thought the associa- <br />tion memberships themselves could easily absorb some of the costs of such things as <br />the printing and mailing of newsletters now being financed by taxes. A third sug- <br />gestion was for consideration of putting out to private bid some of the services <br />now provided by city employes. He cited the parks department improvement in <br />"maintenance-per-man-hourtl figures and thought that pointed out that producitivity <br />in the past had not been at maximum. He said putting maintenance of certain parks <br />on specifications as a bsis for bids by private enterprise could benefit the tax- <br />payers. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoyt continued that after review of the budget process he was convinced the <br />taxpayes were at the mercy of the manager's office and city staff, and although he <br />felt an admirable job was being done, that still would not reduce the present con- <br />cern about development and adoption of future budgets. <br /> <br />6/9/75 - 1 <br /> <br />.1>03 <br />