02/25/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Discussion followed about the PNB Franchise. Mr. Holmer did not believe this to be a user fee, but a three-percent property tax increase, which runs coun- ter to the message in November. He would not like to think of this as a sub- stantial source of revenue. Ms. Schue commented that a raise was in order, if it can be negotiated. Mr. Gleason believed the franchise increase to be a user fee for the use of public right-of-way; the public is inconvenienced and the user is enriched by this use of the right-of-way. The increase would reflect what EWEB is being charged now. Discussion continued on how to proceed. Mr. Gleason explained that the pro- posed Executive Budget is balanced with a $1.1 million CIP fund. Tier 2 is above that and reflects the councilors' decision to have a $2.31 million CIP fund. User fees, as projected, would fund the CIP according to the priorities set by the City Council. Ms. Wooten suggested that the council establish recommendations to the Budget Committee in order to fill the $1.1 million funding between the proposed budget and the Tier 2 CIP. Mr. Rutan preferred to send all the items in Table II and Table III to the Budget Committee for consideration. Ms. Wooten believed the purpose of the meeting was to estab- lish parameters and priorities, not recommendations. It would not necessarily be appropriate to take all the cuts to the Budget Committee, but to establish some scenarios for filling the gap, using both the cuts and the revenues. It is the responsibility of the Budget Committee to consider and analyze cuts and programs. Mr. Gleason reminded the council that a discussion of line items should also include department heads in order to determine impact. Ms. Schue perceived that the process was started in order to do long-range planning in order to deal with the loss of Federal revenue sharing and increase the CIP. When the decision was made to increase the CIP beyond the proposed budget recommendation, then it became necessary to fill the gap created by that decision. She also agreed that it is the responsibility of the council to determine new revenue sources and that some cuts could be made, but decisions about cuts should not be made tonight. She suggested that the council could give the Budget Committee some latitude and, perhaps, a starting figure. Ms. Ehrman did not think it was encroaching on the Budget Committee to give it an agenda of things to talk about. Mr. Rutan agreed. Ms. Wooten wanted it clarified that the mini-votes taken would not preclude Budget Committee actions. Mr. Miller suggested looking at the income side first and establishing parameters, then looking at the reduction side in order to identify those things that would be considered. After discussion, it was agreed that minimum consensus votes would be taken on each item in Tables II and III; that these would be majority votes of members present; and that all vote tallies would be passed to the Budget Committee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 25, 1986 Page 8