CC Minutes - 10/14/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

authority to reallocate the funds in the reserves for other purposes. Mr. Carlson said that the council could leave the money in the bond reserves as well. Mayor Torrey favored the staff recommendation as he believed that it would put the council in the position of dealing with budget shortfalls from a position of strength. He said that if the money was put "up for grabs" in the budget cycle, it would be allocated. He preferred not to use the funds until necessary. Mayor Torrey called for another round of council comments. Mr. Kelly suggested going back to the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Services Committees for feedback on the staff recommendation. Mr. Carlson pointed out that in fiscal year 2004 and beyond, staff proposed to use some of the money to implement the recommendations of the committees. Mr. Kelly acknowledged that fact, but expressed concern about the delay in implementation and reiterated his suggestion to test the recommendation with the committee. Regarding Mr. Carlson's statements regarding the source of the estimate for the delayed assessment fund, Mr. Kelly suggested that staff prepare a shod summary of the origin of the estimate. Speaking to the mayor's comments regarding the criticism the council received, Mr. Kelly said if he thought the City had the potential within the established ten-year time frame to save the bulk of the needed money for new facilities, he would agree. He said that, barring a change, he questioned how much the voters would distinguish between a bond measure of $30 million as opposed to one for $26 million, for example. He suggested that part of the money could be directed to the Facility Reserve, and the remainder could be used to offset budget reductions. Ms. Nathanson said that, in terms of asking the River Road/Santa Clara residents what they wanted, she suspected that staff had developed lists of unfunded potential park site acquisitions, and the City did not need to start with a blank slate given the work that had been done. Ms. Nathanson referred to the reserves and said that she believed the uses proposed by staff were appropriate. She recognized that in the past she had advocated for Budget Committee involvement in major new initiatives or major budget decisions and continued to believe that was appropriate in many cases; however, in this instance, she supported the staff recommendation as the money involved was not hidden and the committee could discuss its use in the future. She noted that the council had the purview to make such adjustments. Ms. Bettman objected to the staff recommendation to direct money to the Facility Reserve because while the money might be available for reallocation, it would not be in the manager's proposed budget. That would put the Budget Committee in the position of "chipping away at it" to plug holes in the budget that were created because the money was not available for allocation when the budget was created. Ms. Bettman also objected to the Facility Reserve because while it was prudent for businesses and homeowners to save for a large capital expenditure, the tax system and the high cost of facilities meant that what could be saved was negligible in the face of the total cost. She could not see arguing to the public that it should support a new police station when the City had spent the last ten years cutting police officers, or that the City should build a new fire station when it MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 5 Work Session