Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />Subcommittee take a more proactive position on the allocation of funds and that <br />a review be conducted annually. <br /> <br />Mayor Keller discussed the language of the proposed resolution, which would <br />allow the council to consider the changes recommended by the subcommittee and <br />any changes the council proposed. Ms. Wooten said this would allow the council <br />to consider the allocations but would not require that the allocations be <br />changed. <br /> <br />Councilor Hansen said that the important point to him was that the resolution <br />would allow the one percent allocated to the bureau to be reduced or taken away. <br />He did not feel this was appropriate. <br /> <br />Councilor Holmer felt that councilors should have been provided with a copy of <br />the existing regulations so that they could compare the proposed language with <br />the existing Section 7. <br /> <br />Councilor Lindberg supported the idea of adopting a systematic formula for <br />review of the Room Tax allocation but hoped it was clear that there was no <br />intention to go back on the commitment to the bureau as long as the bureau was <br />doing a good job. He suggested that a decision be postponed to the April 20 <br />council meeting, so that councilors could review the language of the existing <br />regulations. <br /> <br />Mayor Keller agreed that an annual review was a good idea. He was concerned, <br />however, with the uncertain commitment of revenue to the tourism and convention <br />industry. He suggested that the council wait to see how the one percent alloca- <br />4It tion was working and determine later whether an annual review is needed. <br /> <br />Councilor Schue said that she had voted for the one percent allocation with the <br />understanding that for this year that amount would go to the Visitors. and <br />Convention Bureau but not that forever in the future this allocation would <br />"belong" to the bureau. She felt that the doors should be kept open ~r recon- <br />sideration of the allocation in the future. <br /> <br />Councilor Lindberg suggested that stability in funding could be provided by <br />lengthening the prescribed review period to two years. <br /> <br />Mr. Gleason said that the City does not fund the bureau but, rather, purchases <br />the services contractually. He said that this purchase was a separate and <br />administrative function. He said that the Room Tax allocation formula was a <br />policy decision. He suggested that if the council wished to make examination of <br />the allocation an annual requir~lent, then staff should be allowed to rework the <br />resolution to this effect and return with it at a future council meeting. <br /> <br />Councilor Holmer asked if the proposed amendment would limit reviews to once per <br />year. He felt it was important for the council to retain the freedom to review <br />the matter at any time. Mr. Sercombe responded that the proposed language could <br />perhaps restrict the Room Tax Subcommittee1s report to the council to an annual <br />basis but that it would not affect the council IS ability to review the tax at <br />any time. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />April 13, 1983 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />