Laserfiche WebLink
about putting $2.4 million in the Facility Reserve at a time when the council was facing a <br />challenging budget year. Mr. Kelly preferred that the Budget Committee discuss the issue. <br /> <br />Regarding use of one-time moneys, Mr. Kelly suggested that the council have a discussion on <br />the possible use of those funds over a period of years (as was done with the standard insurance <br />payment) when it heard the six-year financial forecast and was considering potential service <br />reductions. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought the Santa Clara/River Road funds should be used in those areas of the <br />community. However, she preferred to refund the remaining amount in the assessment reserves <br />to those who originally paid the assessments. She also wanted to discuss how the City could <br />spend the money, suggesting that transportation system maintenance was one underfunded area <br />to consider. She did not want to set aside money for buildings when the City was discussing <br />cutting services. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ was concerned about the staff recommendation to take one-time moneys that had <br />accumulated over a long period of time to construct buildings. He preferred to go to the voters <br />for the money to construct facilities. He supported the construction of the fire station in Santa <br />Clara and hoped that the proposal could go forward. He determined from Mr. Carlson that the <br />consultant report regarding fire services had not been completed yet. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman liked the idea of postponing action on the staff recommendation pending more <br />council discussion on how the additional funds should be used in terms of the City's budget <br />priorities. She agreed that the Santa Clara money should be spent in that area and favored <br />using it for the fire station site. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman referred to the one-time nature of the assessment reserves and said the council <br />tried to be consistent about the use of such moneys and avoid spending them on ongoing <br />services. However, it appeared to her that the City kept coming up with "pots of one-time funds," <br />and although staff had offered some good recommendations, the proposed expenditures did not <br />rise to the level of some of the City's other priorities. She believed the money involved was <br />sufficient to be allocated over several years for services. If additional needs for police services <br />arose, she found the reserves to be an attractive revenue source. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Carlson that staff proposed the $2 million fund balance in part <br />as a response to the changes the council made in assessment policy in conjunction with the <br />County. Those were new costs that had not existed before. The Capital Improvement Program <br />(CIP) contained projects staff anticipated would be needed over the six years, and staff had <br />analyzed the expected deferred assessments for those projects to determine the needed <br />amount. Ms. Bettman suggested that the number was inflated because not all property owners <br />would take advantage of the deferral. Mr. Carlson clarified that staff only analyzed the projects in <br />the CIP, not the entire universe of possible assessment projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor clarified the costs of the assessment software program with Ms. Hamm, determining <br />the funding was net of that investment. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that the City had been criticized for asking the voters to fund a new police and <br />fire station rather than building up reserves for that purpose, which led the City to increase its <br />Facility Reserve. He determined from Mr. Carlson that the council and future councils had the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />