CC Minutes - 04/12/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

bridge financing but said he was unsure the entire amount could be absorbed into the General Fund unless something was done to change the overall revenue structure. Mr. Papé agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, City Manager Taylor indicated that the upcoming budget would include about $2 million in annualized revenue available for allocation; he would make recommendations on its allocation, but the $700,000 being contemplated would not come from that source. That was an option the council had, but he thought other council priorities might be considered more important while the City still had the opportunity to ask the voters to support the current level of library services. Mr. Papé asked about the potential impact of compression due to other possible levies. Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge said that currently, the City was not in compression and staff did not anticipate the City would be in compression as a result of the library or after-school levy. The parks bond was outside the cap and did not affect compression. She confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Papé, that if the Tax Court decision regarding the after-school levy was upheld, the education component of the property tax would be in compression. City Manager Taylor said the superintendents of the school districts indicated that they would live with the decision of the Tax Court while it was under appeal, which meant the school levy within the municipal cap would be included in the districts’ caps. Mr. Papé thought the City was moving in the right direction by shifting costs to the General Fund. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé about the contingency fund identified in the forecast of require- ments, Ms. Cutsogeorge said staff projected the assessed value over the next four years, and if it overesti- mated the target, the contingency fund could offset the inaccuracies, any unexpected expenses, and cover the costs of compression. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Papé, Ms. Cutsogeorge said the contingency fund could not be used for General Fund purposes. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the popularity of library programs and emphasized her support for the library. She asked how much of the General Fund cost of library operations was revenue-supported. Ms. Bennett said it was not considered a revenue-supported service; only a small amount came in through fines or fees. Ms. Bettman said because the library was a very popular service, there was a temptation to seek a local option levy for those services as it was more likely to pass. However, she considered the library to be an ongoing General Fund service. She felt any new services to be funded by the money mentioned by City Manager Taylor should be weighed against the fact the library was an ongoing service. She was reluctant to support the staff-proposed motion because it was specific about the amount of the levy and the council had not yet seen the manager’s proposed fiscal year 2008 budget. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that the council would be considering a resolution and it could be amended in May after the council had seen the budget. Today the council was merely giving direction to staff to prepare a resolution. City Manager Taylor said the council had until July 26 to make final decision about what to place on the ballot. Ms. Bennett added that even if the measure was authorized by the council, placed on the ballot, and approved by the voters, the City could under-levy the local option levy if the council chose to fund the service from another source. Ms. Taylor agreed that the library was a basic service and she thought it was ridiculous that the council had not pursued other forms of revenue, which was a long-time council goal. She said Springfield was considering a business tax, and suggested that Eugene could do the same. She determined from City MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 12, 2006 Page 2 Work Session