05/23/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- Mr. Obie said he understood the consensus of the council was that restoration was not an issue. In response to a question, Mr. Gleason clarified that the topic of discussion was the 1986 budget. Ms. Schue said she would like to see some restoration but was not prepared to place the City at risk in doing so. Mr. Ball said he had already stated those restoration items that he would support, adding that they should be dealt with in the budgetary process. e On the issue of salaries and fringe benefits, Mr. Obie said he tended to accept Mr. Holmer's argument based on his own experiences in the private sector, although he might be overlooking some factors. Mr. Gleason stated that the wage structure of the United States led the Wage and Price Index and the City's wage structure reflected that factor. He said the only way to keep City wages in line with the inflation base would be to reduce the employment base. He stressed that salaries were 80 percent of the budget and to miss the projection by one percent would mean more than $800,000. Mr. Holmer stated that a substantial advantage was given to the employees of one public agency in the form of a fringe benefit on which taxes were not required, increasing the net compensation for the employees. He stated that setting a framework for negotiation would strengthen the relationship of staff dealing with other employees. Mr. Gleason said he agreed with the concept of compensation being the entire issue. He said the City was in a respectable position in the market, lying in the mid-point of the Oregon public sector. He cautioned that missing the salary projection would have drastic results. While the employees settled for no salary increase this year, he said the market will drive the City. Mr. Gleason said the differences were little but comprised 85 percent of the budget. He said that the budget did not include a growth figure for employment and that this factor would be a problem in the future. He said he would be more willing to follow the budget guidelines set if he could obtain some tolerance to prioritize budget items from the council. In the area of salaries and fringe benefits, Mr. Ball, Ms. Smith, Ms. Nichols, Ms. Schue, and Mr. Obie agreed to support Mr. Gleason's recommendations, while Mr. Holmer supported his own recommendation. With regard to General Contingency, Mr. Obie stated that staff was recommend- ing a ratio of 1.3 percent while Mr. Holmer stated that 1 percent was adequate. In response to a question, Mr. Wong said that one percent represented approxi- mately $300,000. He stated that $500,000 was in the beginning balance for next year's budget. He added that the General Contingency Fund had not been totally used in previous years but it will be wiped out during the next supplemental budget. Mr. Gleason stressed the necessity of holding the line. Ms. Smith, Ms. Nichols, Ms. Schue, and Mr. Obie agreed with the staff recom- mendation, while Mr. Holmer supported a ratio of one percent. Regarding Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance (UEFB), Mr. Wong explained that it was the cash-flow requirement for the General Fund. He said that staff was recommending an increase of $500,000 each year. He explained that Mr. Holmer had taken the percentage for FY1985 and used it to calculate the ratio for succeeding years, resulting in an annual increase of approximately $300,000. He said that $5.8 million was in the budget just passed but staff felt that e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 1984 Page 5