CC Minutes - 05/22/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

were concerned with a precipitous change in FY08 from full levy funding to full General Fund funding. She said her motion represented a compromise that addressed the concerns of the broadest range of committee members and councilors and if it passed she intended to support both the levy and the budget. She said the City was experiencing a healthy budget cycle because of its conservative fiscal policies over the years and it was the City’s responsibility to transition library operations into the General Fund consistent with those policies. In response to a request from Mayor Piercy, City Manager Taylor said that Ms. Bettman’s amendment would put the City on a path to transition the library entirely into the General Fund over the period of the levy, but also place an increasingly difficult operating expense on the budget and a reduction in the Reserve for Revenue Shortfall. Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge distributed charts that illustrated the impact of adopting the levy as proposed and as amended by Ms. Bettman. She explained the impacts on the annual surplus/deficit and Reserve for Revenue Shortfall of the levy as recommended by the Budget Committee and as proposed by Ms. Bettman. Mr. Papé asked if the levy amount could be reduced each year. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that State law prohibited levying a different amount each year; the same amount had to be levied each year but the full amount did not have to be spent. City Manager Taylor added that the council had the option of levying at a certain level and if the goal to transition was reached faster than anticipated, the annual adoption of the budget could under-levy what the voters approved. Mr. Kelly commented that while State law did not allow the levy approach Ms. Bettman intended, it could still be accomplished from an accounting standpoint by spreading the funds over the four-year period. Mr. Pryor remarked that the discussion was about two ways to reach the same goal as there was agreement that this would be the last levy and library operations would be placed in the General Fund at the end of four years. He said the question was how that would occur and the impact on other aspects of the budget. He felt that the amendment to recital C reflected the council’s intent but created an unnecessary constraint. He preferred the version in the resolution as recommended by the Budget Committee and supported by staff because it would still allow the council to reach its goal of funding library operations while providing flexibility. He supported the addition of recital D and would propose it if Ms. Bettman’s amendment failed so that the public would be well aware of the council’s intent to move library operations into the General Fund. He would not support the amendment to recital C. Ms. Taylor said she would support the amendment and hoped the council would be stimulated to find new sources of revenue as levies were not the right way to support the library. Ms. Ortiz said it was difficult for her to abandon the idea of levies because she viewed the City as a whole and there were services that some people would have more access to than others, such as branch libraries. She was concerned that if library operations were entirely transitioned into the budget those services could be reduced or eliminated and outlying communities would have much less access. She would prefer to have a conversation about how the library could be made more accessible to the entire community instead of trying to decide how to put it in the budget. She feared that if the library was in the budget it would be competing against services such as police, fire, and social services. She thought it was easier to ask the community to support the main library and branch libraries in neighborhoods than to ask for money for the Police Department. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 8 Work Session