Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />the council should not approve a capital project unless an operating budget <br />mechanism is generated, and vice versa. <br /> <br />The motion passed, 5:2 (Mr. Boles and Mr. Nicholson opposed). <br /> <br />Mr. MacDonald moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to meet the <br />fiscal needs of the operating component of the package through <br />a tax base increase. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Wong said that the council would be asking the voters for the total tax <br />base desired for next year. Ms. Ehrman said that she did not support a <br />property tax increase. Mr. Nicholson said that the City should receive a <br />reasonable share of the property tax. He wondered if a specific amount could <br />be determined by the circumstances at the time. Mr. Wong said that the <br />council must determine the amount the City needs prior to imposing the tax. <br />Mr. Boles reiterated his concern about the difference between the capital for <br />fire services versus that for police services. He requested that the council <br />reconsider its previous vote, in light of the possibility that the operating <br />budget portion may pass, but the capital budget portion may not, or vice <br />versa. Mr. Nicholson shared Mr. Boles' concern. Mr. MacDonald pointed out <br />that it is standard budgetary procedure to create a capital and an operating <br />budget. Mr. Robinette said that fire and police services are public safety <br />issues, and should not be considered separate issues. Mr. MacDonald said that <br />the City has discussed fire redeployment with the County and that State laws <br />require coordination of the City and County on this issue. He added that half <br />of the population of lane County resides in Eugene, and that the City must <br />participate more actively in County decisions. He agreed with Mr. Robinette's <br />view that fire and police issues should be viewed together as public safety <br />issues. Mr. Nicholson said that he was opposed to increasing property taxes. <br /> <br />The motion passed, 4:3 (Mr. Green, Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Nicholson <br />opposed). <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Regarding library enhancements, Mr. Mounts said that the council direction was <br />to fund the enhancements with a two-percent restaurant and entertainment tax, <br />with a sunset after a specified period. It is assumed that the tax would be <br />levied for a minimum of 10 years, that a bonded debt of 10 years for construc- <br />tion would amount to $2.2 million, that the marginal operating costs for the <br />main library, one branch, and information system is $1.177 million, and that <br />taxes for the marginal operating costs would be collected from year one. <br /> <br />Mr. Green said that he does not support this proposal because his constituents <br />are interested in a branch located in their neighborhood, not enhancing the <br />main branch. Mr. Boles wondered why library enhancements could not be funded <br />by a small bond or be self-funded. Mr. Gleason said that the City does not <br />have $14 million (construction costs for the first year) on reserve not <br />already marked for other purposes. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles said that if a five-percent tax was imposed and dedicated to library <br />construction, the City would own the library in three years. He wondered if <br />the City could automate the debt service management of mini-bonds. Mr. Wong <br />said that the City could use a standard system, or manage it itself. Mr. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br />April 23, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />