11/19/1990 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

e revenue sources following cuts in the capital budget. Mr. Boles said that the City had been balancing its operating budget by taking from the capital budget for too long. He pointed out that 73 percent of the citizens are satisfied with the level of services received from the City. He did not believe the council had a mandate from the community telling it to cut services, yet that was the recommendation before the council. Mr. Boles suggested that, alternatively, the council accept the recommendation of the staff, excluding the capital budget. While the council goes through the strategic planning process, it could establish a time-limited revenue source to fund the capital budget. Mr. Boles suggested that the revenue source could be a utility tax, a percentage of the State income tax, or a mixture of sources. Mr. Miller summarized the three proposals before the council: 1) the staff recommendation; 2) Mr. Boles' suggestion for a time-limited revenue source for the capital budget; and 3) Mr. Rutan's suggestion for a small-group team approach to key issues identified by the council. Ms. Bascom asked Mr. Boles if he wished to wrap a discussion of new revenues into the strategic plan process. Mr. Boles said yes. He said he wished to discuss service and capital cuts as well, and he did not see how that could be done if the decision to cut capital was the approach already selected. Ms. Bascom reminded Mr. Rutan that the council had tried processing issues in a small-group setting. She pointed to the Council Committee on Economic Diversification as an example where a council committee had worked hard on a e specific proposal yet had been unable to convince the rest of the council of the proposal's merits. Ms. Bascom said that while Mr. Rutan's proposal might seem more efficient, she questioned whether the issues could be processed through small groups. Ms. Schue wondered if the energy that should be directed toward the strategic plan might not be diverted by a fight over a new tax. Mr. Boles believed that a more important issue was the loss of the capital budget. Mr. Robinette pointed out that Eugene voters had not supported Ballot Measure 5 and might be amenable to funding capital construction outside the cap. He said that acceptance of the staff recommendation did not mean that the capital projects on the list would never occur. Rather, the council would go to the citizens and ask them if they will support the capital budget. Ms. Ehrman supported the staff recommendation as an immediate response to the situation facing City government. Mr. Rutan urged the council not to take the list of eliminated capital projects literally. He said the council's goal was to balance FY92 assuming the maximum impact of Ballot Measure 5. He did not see the list as being final or the only option available to the council. Mr. Rutan reminded the council that there were many unknowns. Mr. Boles expressed the hope that the council would be able to see a list of projects that included detail on cost and timing. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 9