Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Clark observed that there was a fairly strong sentiment among the public that the government took <br />from one pocket and put into another. He said he would oppose the motion. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor asked if it would be expedient to adopt the Supplemental Budget at the present meeting. <br />Ms. Murdoch replied that the Supplemental Budget affected the accuracy of the FY09 budget. She said <br />staff liked to use accurate numbers in the budgets and working capital and if those numbers were not <br />available they would not be able to report them in the budget document in a timely way. She underscored <br />that for finance staff it was nice, but not essential. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor asked if adoption of the Supplemental Budget at the present meeting would prevent the <br />council from discussing and potentially making shifts to the FY09 budget. Ms. Murdoch responded that <br />adoption would not preclude such action. She added, however, that if funds from the Telecom Fund that <br />were there because projects from the previous year had not been completed were moved, it was important to <br />remember that there was no new project money, no allocation to do anything new, that had not been <br />authorized by the council. She stressed that the money had already been approved, but if the council did not <br />want to continue with projects that it had allocated money for previously and wanted to do something <br />different for that money, it could be difficult to undo once the Supplemental Budget had been approved. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor ascertained from Ms. Murdoch that no departments would be impeded if the Supplemental <br />Budget was not passed at the present meeting. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka wanted to clarify that the council was not saying that staff was not “following the rules.” <br />He thought the rules should be revisited. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman suggested that the item be taken up on December 12. She opined that since the City Hall <br />proposal was postponed again, it was time to revisit the previous decision by council to siphon off the <br />money that would be used to maintain the buildings and utilize it to resume this maintenance. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Solomon, Pryor, Ortiz, and Poling voting <br />in favor and councilors Bettman, Zelenka, Clark, and Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor <br />Piercy voted against the motion and the motion failed on a 5:4 vote. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene <br />Urban Renewal Agency. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />4.(contd.) PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: <br /> <br />Resolution 1045 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal <br />Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2007, and Ending June 30, <br />2008 <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />John Barofsky <br />, 2010 Hubbard Lane, averred that had there been a Budget Committee meeting on the <br />previous item it could have benefited the discussion and the Supplemental Budget could have been passed in <br />a timely manner. Regarding the Urban Renewal Agency budget, he wanted to know how much of the <br />$242,000 spent on options had been used, how many would expire, and what the cost of the options to the <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 12 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />