Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />H. Fire Charges <br /> <br />Mr. Wong stated that the contracts were renewed every year. Mr. Gleason <br />stated that the Fire contracts were a positive cash flow element of the <br />budget, explaining that they were paying for some of the fixed overhead costs. <br />Mr. Holmer suggested that they should be increased at five percent along with <br />other costs. Mr. Gleason stated that the major contract was Santa Clara/River <br />Road. He explained that the City would lose that contract if the area were <br />annexed; property owners would have to pay for the service. Mr. Gleason <br />stated that the rate may decrease. It was decided to increase the staff rate <br />to five percent. <br /> <br />I. Court Fines & Forfeitures <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer, referring to SChedule 1.1, asked why the funding of Parking <br />Tickets was held constant at $183,000 from FY85 to FY90. Bob Deis of the <br />Finance Department stated that the Court Administrator had suggested that no <br />increase be added due to the loss of one position. He thought that the figure <br />was based on the lack of increase in the rates and the number of parking <br />spaces. Mr. Holmer suggested that the rate be increased to five percent. <br />Mr. Whitlow stated that the rate might be influenced by the availablity of <br />police officers and workload. Mr. Gleason agreed that the rate could be <br />increased; he felt the council would expect to see the necessary changes in the <br />ordinances. He explained that the increased prices would be incorporated after <br />the present supply of parking tickets was exhausted. It was agreed to raise <br />the rate to five percent. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer asked if any calculation had been made by staff on the interest <br />earned by the tax money collected by Lane County. Mr. Gleason stated that no <br />calculation had been made. <br /> <br />J. Interfund Transfer from State Tax Street Fund <br /> <br />Mr. Wong explained that $1.965 million was being transferred to the fund in <br />FY85 because the City was spending its beginning capital on several at-risk <br />projects. He explained that any funds received beyond FY85 would be trans- <br />ferred out of the account. Mr. Wong stated that the projection was based on <br />discussions with the State on the expected gasoline volume sales. Mr. Gleason <br />stated that the Street Fund had a beginning balance which the City reduced <br />this year to handle some at-risk projects. He said in the future the City <br />would be spending an amount equal to what was expected from the State. <br /> <br />K. Interfund Transfer from Other Funds <br /> <br />Mr. Wong reviewed the methodology and assumptions, stating that staff was <br />projecting a five-percent growth rate. There were no objections to the <br />projected rate. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />April 11, 1984 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />