06/22/1992 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e other dollars available and set priorities on a broader scale. He indicated his general support for the projects on the work program, but said that they were better addressed through the supplemental budget process. Mr. MacDonald said he did not realize that approving the commission's work plan was approving a budget. He supported holding the dollars intended for the projects in reserve and funding the projects through supplemental budgets. He said that such a course would address the issue of public perception. Mr. Green said that the issues raised by the council were better processed at the council's work session with the Downtown Commission. He said that allocating the funds does not mean that the projects are approved. Mr. Green questioned why the arguments presented by Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Nicholson, and Mr. MacDonald were not raised at the work session. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Nicholson said that the budget includes an expenditure for the Riverfront Research Park, and the council is still not aware of the affect of bonded indebtedness in the park on the tax cap. Mr. Nicholson suggested that there are issues to be resolved before such projects are funded. Responding to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Gary said that the district's budget allocates $2.5 million to capital projects. The budget e document describes the projects and amounts that make up that total. He said that were the council to remove from the capital project line item the amount attributed to any particular project, the resolution should be amended to reduce the line item by that amount and allocate it to "Other Requirements-- Reserve." Proceeding with a project will require a supplemental budget. Ms. Ehrman said that she would support an amended motion. She reiterated the point of the need to consider public perception and understanding in the council's decision. Mr. Nicholson agreed. Mr. Boles indicated his opposition to modifying the budget by placing the capital project funds in reserve. He did not agree that approval of the budget would reduce the council's control over how the funds were expended. He pointed out that the budget had been managed in the same manner in the past without detriment. Mr. Boles said that the council was making a decision without providing staff with clear direction on how to manage the issue. Mr. MacDonald moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to delete $1.8 million in funds allocated for capital projects and place those funds in "Other Requirements--Reserve" category. There was discussion regarding the amount that should be deleted from the budget for capital projects. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 9 7:30 p.m.