04/02/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - it was not the hope of the Financial Planning Committee to entirely solve the service level problem, but to provide some direction toward its resolution. She commented that the Hult Center might be considered a new program not previously accounted for. Councilor Hansen felt that Mr. Holmer would agree that the City has a shortfall in its capital side. He hoped that the council would not debate a new revenue source, but he felt it should point out what it perceives as shortfalls from income and expenses in the Hult Center. He said the task force had attempted to develop some recommendations for the City Council and the Budget Committee. Based on conversations among its members, he felt the task force believed that other sources of income should be studied. Mr. Obie said the charge of the task force was to develop recommendations on funding the Hult Center through Federal Revenue Sharing or General funds; he said the council could decide that this could be accomplished without any new revenue sources. In response to a question, Councilor Wooten interpreted the task force recommen- dation to suggest that the current Hult Center shortfall be covered by General Fund moneys, but it did not necessarily mean money from property taxes. She felt that this decision was best left to the City Manager. She stated that the task force was not considering the Federal Revenue Sharing funds as separate from the General Fund. Mr. Obie stated that Items 1 and 4 had recommended the use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds. Mr. Ball said he understood that the $594,000 of the interfund loan would come from the revenue sharing funds which had been dedicated to capital side expenditures. Councilor Hansen again stated that the Hult Center was part of the City and the operating fund; he therefore preferred not to use the "revenue sharing" terminology. He said the City Manager will have to decide the source of the funds for the Hult Center. He stressed that any discussion or action should address the Hult Center as being part of the City. Ms. Schue stated that she had raised the General Fund issue to clarify that the fund contained revenue sources other than just property taxes and that covering the Hult Center shortfall with General Fund moneys would not necessarily mean a rise in property taxes. In regard to the $125,000 originally budgeted from the Eugene Arts Foundation, Ms. Wooten added that the task force had discussed several options for covering this figure without impacting programs important to the public. In response to a question, Ms. Schue stated that the General Revenue Sharing funds could be used to cover the $125,000 if the new tax package failed. Mr. Gleason stated that the General Fund contained approximately 100 revenue sources, the major one being property taxes. He said the discretionary money was in the General Fund; therefore, the council was left with using the General Fund, which contained the general shared revenue, to address the deficit. He added that the City Council recommended during its goal setting session that existing services should not be disturbed, leaving only incremental increases through user fees or the reduction of capital projects as sources of revenue. He said the debate on general shared revenues was really on capital projects versus existing operating systems. He stressed that the shortfall would not impact the property taxes. Ms. Smith, referring to Mr. Ball's comment that the revenue sharing moneys going to capital projects being a policy of the council, stated that it was not a policy but a goal of the council, and therefore some flexibility existed. Mr. Ball responded that it was the aim of the council to increase the revenue sharing contribution to the capital side 25 percent each year over a four-year period. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 2, 1984 Page 4