04/11/1984 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - assumptions made for the Transfer to EPAC Operations. Mr. Ball commented that an expenditure should not be included in the budget unless revenue was available to cover it. Ms. Schue stated that she wanted to go to the voters on the Hult Center issue and to develop a new form of revenue. Mr. Hansen said he was unwilling to go to the voters for anything in which the Hult Center was high- lighted. Mr. Gleason stated that the General Fund needed additional capital, partially due to the Hult Center deficit. Ms. Schue said the public should be told that the City had budget and capital problems beyond the Hult Center. Ms. Wooten stated that the tax package proposed was a compromise to address this issue. Mr. Holmer said it was likely that Proposition 3 would be on the fall ballot; therefore it was inappropriate to ask the voters for approval of another tax. Ms. Wooten stressed that the City needed to restore some of the items previously cut from the budget and that the City needed to develop a new revenue source to provide basic services and restore those items. She said the City will have to reorder its priorities if the voters turn down a single new revenue source. Mr. Hansen stated that he must be convinced that the entire package rather than a single item was needed. Ms. Wooten stated that she supported the tax package to protect the General Fund and other existing services. Mr. Hansen felt that proposing three revenue resources multiplied the chances of being turned down by the voters. He suggested that a wage tax be studied. Several comments were made against the wage tax based on the fact that a percentage of the population did not work for wages. Mayor Keller urged that the sales tax should be supported, stating that Proposition 3 will win if it is placed on the ballot. He said other jurisdictions would adopt the sales tax if Eugene and Springfield adopted it first. He said no perfect tax existed, but he felt that a county-wide income tax would be a big deterrent to attracting new development to the area. R. Non-Departmental--Transfer to Fleet Fund Mr. Wong reviewed the methodology and assumptions. He explained that the City could spend $1 million each year to play catch-up in replacing vehicles. S. Non-Departmental--Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance Mr. Wong reviewed the item, stating that staff had arbitrarily picked $500,000 as the increase per year. He stated that the figures quoted were lower than what was really needed. Mr. Holmer suggested that using the same percentages for FY86 and beyond as was used for FY85 would provide a savings of $225,000 each year and would increase the amount to be earned on Tax Anticipation Notes. Mr. Gleason warned that the City could lose on TANs, especially if the City lost its AA bond rating. He said he was willing to study TANs as a strategy. Mr. Gleason stated that he did not disagree with Mr. Holmerls comments, stating that the difference being argued in the budget was small and that staff did not have the solutions. He said 35 positions in the City were "at risk.1I He felt that the City may be creating a bigger problem for itself. Mayor Keller agreed that the difference being discussed in the budget was $1 million, but the real issue was how finite the council wished to be on the budget. Ms. Wooten stated that the key issue was the council IS position on service restorations. She appreciated the efforts and work of Mr. Wong. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 1984 Page 8