05/26/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Councilor Ball said that he would vote against Council Bill 2480, because he opposed the allocation to the Oregon Repertory Theater, but agreed to support the bill on the first reading, so that final reading could take place at this meeting. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2480 was read the second time be council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. Motion carried 5:1, with councilors Hamel, Miller, Schue, Smith, and Wooten voting in favor, and Councilor Ball voting in opposition. The bill was' declared passed and numbered 18983 Res. 3672--A resolution authorizing the transfer of contingency appropriations within a given fund to official budget categories. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Res. 3673--A resolution acknowledging adjustment to estimated revenues and authorizing the adjustments to appro- priations and expenditures related to those revenues. e Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Whitlow explained that these two resolutions accomplished the transfer of appropriations to the Convention and Visitors Bureau. VIII. RESOLUTION CHANGING OVERHEAD RATES ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (memo, resolution distributed) Mr. Whitlow introduced Bert Teitzel, City Engineer. Mr. Teitzel said that the purpose of the resolution was to enable the City to recover the actual costs of engineering and financing improvement projects, including assessment projects. He said that the resolution called for an increase of the engineering fee from the current 10 percent to 15 percent and for change of the method of calculating the administrative fee which would raise that fee from the current 8 percent to 2 percent plus actual warrant costs. He said that the resolution also called for adding 3 percent in 1982 to reimburse the General Fund for central service. Mr. Teitzel said that these increases and changes would bring fees charged in line with actual costs to the City. He said that the disparity between current fees and actual costs to the City resulted from:; 1) the way in which the admin- istrative section of the Public Works Department is allocated to the different divisions; 2) leveling off of construction costs over the past few years with no corresponding leveling off of City operating costs; and 3) costs of upgrading City filing systems and development of computer systems. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1982 Page 9