04/30/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

levy. They objected to the proposed increase of some $300,000 over the previous year's levy in view of availibility of, revenue sharing funds, and the apparent atti tude held by the Budget Committee to expand City government and its expendi--. ~,' tures. Examples cited were the original position to support the highest recom~ . mended range of pay for Council members and giving highest priority to a $275,000 . ' interest-free loan proposal forylow-rent housing on the rev:enue.s:na:r~ng, list. , ' Councilman Hersh~er expressed agreement with the statement so far as reference to the housing issue 'and pay for Council members. He did not altogether agree with possible inference that revenue sharing funds'are,to offset property taxes only., He thought one of the' main purposes of revenue sharing funds was to enable cities to take care. of needs they were unable to accQmplish because of lack of funds. He didn't feel it was proper to ask voter approval of a leby outside the 610 limitation by some $2 million without knowing at this time how the revenue sharing funds were going to be used. He said he would vote to place the levy on the ballot because he felt that. before the May 24 election Budget Committ;,8,eaction will designate use of revenue sharing funds so that the voters will know how the levy will be spent. He recognized delay in the budget. process because of inclusion for the first time of rev:enuesh~ring monies., ' Councilwoman Campbell' said she would like to hear the reaction of the Budget Committee to the statement presented. She felt some problems may h~ve stemmed from a desire for voter consideration of the budget levy on th~sameballot with the auditorium issue. Councilwoman Beal regretted presentatiOn-'of the statement at ,this. time, 'feeling any problems could have been worked out in either the Budget _ 'Committee or a Coupcil work session. ... Councilman Williams explained thafthis'was th~ first available opportunity to present objections since Budget Committee action was taken. He"r;xpressed deep concern about measures to appear on the May 24 ballot and said an ~ffort'had been made to hold the matter at the Budget Committee level. Discussion followed with regard to consideration of budget items in Budget Committee meetings. Mayor Anderson asked whether opposition was to the total cOl1licept of pay for Council, members or to amount recommended only. Mr. ,Williams answered that theyendoreeq the concept of ,v.olunteerism in Council, serviGe ..as opposed to financial hardship, ' but Budget Committee discussion did not consider voluntary service and relative ,"'~' compensation. Those making the statement feel strongly that,," servic eon the Council should be voluntary without financial ,hardship. ,He added that these six members of the Budget 'Committee did not agree with the 'majority decision and felt the ' only proper way to resolve the problem is ,to ask voterqonsideration. Mayor Anderson asked if Couuncil would be willing to ask for consideration by the Budget Committee,. He felt the proposal measures an unusaul departure from normal expenditures and thought reconsider0tiDn might bring some resolution rather that'taking measures to the votErs with a 'substantial minority of the Budget Com- mittee opposed. ' ~ . Councilwoman Beal said her impression of purpose of Federal government in making revenue shraing funds available was not to reduce property taxes" rather to,"" ' strengthen city governments and pickup Federal programs being curtailed or dropped. She felt if those funds are used only to offset property taxes, the Federal government may not support revenue. sharing in the future.' She said she didn't agree with the way the housing :f)rogram is to be implemented, 'but revenue sharing'does provide a method of meeting local social needs. Councilman Williams replied that the statement read does not argue that revenue sharing funds are to.: be used to reduce property taxes. ,It does argue that submitting a proposal to increase the property tax by some $300,000 is inapproporiate. , I' IV. Resolutions Resolution No; 2168 - Authorizing Quitclaim Deed re: Easement parallel and south of West 1st east of ,Wallis Street - Agril~Pac (EWEB) was submitted. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall . VotB. All councilmen' present voting aye, motion carried. --'-"'.~-------~-~._-~-;;._ - - - -. - - ~ '0 _ - . ~ '.-,Re~o:Lutiori. No :2169~~,. A].lthorlzing Bargain ,and Sal._~,J1eed' to Eugene_.~, Renewal Agency on Stearn Plant beTwe-en 8th 'Ay~mie :arid Broadway ,"Oli ve and Willamette (EWEB) was submitted. :.' Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, motion carried. Resolution No. '2171 - Authorizing placing on May 24, 1973 ballot an Advisory Measure indicating preference on site for auditorium ceeter - Down- town or Alton Baker Park was submitted. ~ ''3f) 4/30/73 -:- 18