My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/04/1992 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1992
>
03/04/1992 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 5:46:34 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:04:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
3/4/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. MacDonald requested that the revisions to the goals and policies be pro- <br />vided in legislative format. <br /> <br />Several councilors expressed concern that there could be a perception that <br />the City Council is deciding the results of the Eugene Decisions process <br />prematurely. Mr. Nicholson shared this concern, stating that the City Coun- <br />cil is establishing goals regarding Eugene Decisions which were not estab- <br />lished at the beginning of the process. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles said that during Round 2, last November, the City Council provided <br />the community with examples of what would happen if there were no additional <br />revenues. The sample strategies were crafted from the existing policy on <br />service priorities, which was adopted by a previous council. If no addition- <br />al revenue is authorized, the City Manager is bound by these service priori- <br />ties in developing a reduction proposal for council consideration. If the <br />City Council wishes to change the process by which such a reduction proposal <br />would be developed, a new policy needs to be in place. If no policy is in <br />place, the council would have to wait until the community expresses its pref- <br />erence for no additional revenue sources before providing direction on how <br />service reductions would be approached. He said that by acting now, the <br />council can respond to questions from the public about what the council would <br />do if no additional revenue is approved. <br /> <br />Mr. Nicholson agreed that thoughtful consideration on these issues should be <br />taken. <br /> <br />Mr. Gleason said that the most significant changes in the strategies over the <br />past four years reflect a desire to develop long-term sustainable service <br />systems with measurable outputs. <br /> <br />Regarding the service level priorities for General Fund services in attach- <br />ment 4, Mr. Gleason said that if animal control is included under Priority 1, <br />less police officer time is needed. <br /> <br />Mayor Miller said that services in service level 1 would be done regardless <br />of other General Fund service reductions. In response to a question from Ms. <br />Ehrman, Mr. Gleason said that the City has its own Municipal Court because it <br />raises enough revenue to support its operations and the City can schedule <br />police officer appearances to minimize the cost of overtime. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles stated that the committee distributed items included in "economic <br />diversification," previously identified as service priority 2, among the <br />various service levels. <br /> <br />Regarding service level 2 policies on capital asset maintenance, Mr. <br />MacDonald expressed a desire to examine the data on the justification for <br />allocation of resources to various activities. Mr. Wong said that the cur- <br />rent capital budget supports health and safety standards. He said that maxi- <br />mizing preservation of eXisting assets would require a $4 million general <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br />April 6, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.