Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br /> e HVAC upgrade and building rehabilitation and maintenance. Mr. Gleason said <br /> he had sought further information from Public Works Department staff <br /> regarding the items included in the items cited by Mr. Boles. He had not yet <br /> received that information and could not respond to Mr. Boles. He asked the <br /> council to accept the concept and promised to bring back more details on the <br /> cuts. <br /> The council reviewed an overhead listing options for new revenue sources and <br /> anticipated revenues shown in millions of dollars. Mr. Wong used a series of <br /> overheads to illustrate options for one-time resources and program cuts. Mr. <br /> Gleason said staff recommended a cornbined approach: the administrative <br /> spending control/revenue enhancements, cutting both the General Fund Capital <br /> Budgets for FY91 and FY92, one-time resources not yet defined, and revenue <br /> enhancements and service adjustments to the FY92 budget. <br /> Referring to the options for new revenue, Ms. Ehrman asked if legal analysis <br /> had been made of the utility tax or real estate transfer tax. Mr. Wong said <br /> the utility tax, if designed correctly, could be imposed. There is a <br /> moratorium on imposition of a real estate transfer tax until 1993. <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Wong said the City has the <br /> authority to impose any user fee, charge, or tax not prohibited by State <br /> statute or the State Constitution. <br /> Mr. Boles asked about the possibility of examining a solution to the impacts <br /> of Ballot Measure 5 in conjunction with Springfield and Lane County. Mr. <br /> Wong said staff is still attempting to determine the impacts of the measure. <br /> e Mr. Gleason said that he has talked to other administrators throughout the <br /> state. The effect of the measure on each jurisdiction was mixed. Mr. <br /> Gleason said that the measure most strongly affects major metropolitan areas. <br /> Due to the difference in effect, there has been a variety of responses to the <br /> passage of the measure. <br /> Mr. Gleason said that he did not want to recommend revenue additions or cuts <br /> to programs outside the capital program if those options preclude the council <br /> from having a discussion about services with the community. The effects of <br /> the measure must be gauged and the strategic planning process in place before <br /> such action could be taken. Mr. Boles suggested that, alternately, the <br /> council carry forward its current service base and examine a time-limited <br /> revenue source to support that base. <br /> Referring to the list of one-time resources, Mr. Nicholson asked about the <br /> effect of using the unappropriated ending fund balance. Mr. Wong said the <br /> purpose of those funds was to cover City expenses until property tax revenues <br /> are received in November and December. If the City does not have those <br /> resources available, it must go to the lending market and borrow. Mr. <br /> Gleason said that the use of those funds would be the last item on that list <br /> he would recommend. <br /> Mr. Robinette asked about the possibility of approving the staff <br /> recommendation while pursuing Mr. Boles' suggestion and legislative remedies. <br /> Mr. Gleason said that could be done. He said he would like to have a clear <br /> e <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 6 <br />