Laserfiche WebLink
could not afford to staff it. She said that funding services should come first, and if there was <br />money left over, it could be saved to build facilities. Otherwise, the council could go to the voters <br />and request new facilities. Ms. Bettman said that if the reserves were restricted to a new police <br />station or city hall she would not object, but that was not the case; the money could be used by <br />any future council for any purpose. She wanted to use the money to restore basic core services. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor thought the proposed use of the money was prudent. The money would be saved for <br />the future, which he thought appropriate until the City had more control over employee fringe <br />benefits, which was the City's main cost driver. Until benefit reforms were instituted, he did not <br />want to expand services in the usual way. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson recalled that the financial element of the Downtown Space Plan assumed that <br />funding would be a combination of own-source revenue and bond measures. That was the <br />approach taken to the fire station and forensics and property control building. He believed that <br />the use of one-time resources were a good source of money for facilities reserves to build <br />downtown spaces. The City would not save enough money in ten years to build a new police <br />station or city hall, but had the potential of significantly reducing the amount the voters were <br />asked to provide. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey concurred with the statements of Mr. Carlson. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said he preferred not to use one-time money to support ongoing services but was <br />conflicted about the proposal to put the money in the Facility Reserve. He suggested that the <br />council adopt the staff recommendation and direct Mr. Carlson to highlight the existence of the <br />funds to the Budget Committee in his presentation of the fiscal year 2004 budget. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly responded to Mr. PapS, saying that there was a difference between what was <br />theoretically possible and what was likely to happen. He was concerned that, even if the <br />manager highlighted the money, the Budget Committee would be reluctant to use it to avoid <br />further budget reductions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare <br /> a request for Supplemental Budget #1 that appropriates $2 million for the <br /> delayed assessment program, $100,000 to reimburse the Assessment <br /> Management Fund for prior expenditures, and $50,000 as a contingency for <br /> the SPA/ARS software upgrade, and moves $2,460,000 to the Facility <br /> Reserve. Funding for these appropriations should come from reducing the <br /> reserves in the In-City Assessment Bond Fund reserve. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to strike the words "and move <br /> $2,460,000 in the Facility Reserve." <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said he would oppose the amendment. He trusted the manager's judgment, and pointed <br />out that the council could reallocate the funds at any time. <br />Ms. Taylor supported the amendment, saying that if the money was not made available to the <br />Budget Committee it would not be spent on services at all. She preferred that the City use the <br />money to avoid drastic service cuts. If money was left, the committee could vote to put it in the <br />Facility Reserve. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 2002 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />