Laserfiche WebLink
when future councils were prioritizing funds, and needed services would be cut. Ms. Bettman <br />believed there was more flexibility in a general obligation bond for a new City Hall then the council <br />had in its revenues to fund services. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor noted her concurrence with Mr. Rayor's remarks that the City needed to be aware of <br />its costs, but she did not think the proposal the way to accomplish that goal. She hoped the City <br />would soon have a performance auditor, which she believed would make everyone more aware of <br />where the costs were and where savings could be found. The proposal did not create any money, <br />and if departments had to pay market-based rents, they would have to cut services. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr thought the benefit of the proposal was that it created no new money and helped the City <br />operate within its existing budget. He agreed with Mr. Rayor's remarks regarding the need to <br />assess the long-term impacts of the proposal. He believed the staff proposal represented a step in <br />the right direction, as it responded to the community's desire that the City operate more efficiently. <br />He said the council must consider any potential service reductions very carefully, but he continued <br />to support the proposal for the reasons he stated. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said the council needed to know the impact of the proposal so it could evaluate the <br />tradeoffs in an aboveboard fashion. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for the second round of council comments. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if the plan was intended to impose discipline upon the organization to save <br />money. Mr. Carlson said yes. Ms. Nathanson said that was a good thing. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed that such discipline was a good thing. Responding to Mr. Farr's comments, <br />Mr. Meisner reiterated his remarks about the Six-Year Financial Forecast and said it was his belief <br />the proposal would require further reductions to services in the near-future. He said the City must <br />operate efficiently and he thought the City made substantial reductions and accomplished great <br />efficiencies during the Ballot Measure 47/50 budget process. He was not prepared to say at this <br />time what programs he would eliminate to pay for the proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly characterized the concept behind the proposal as a good thing but he believed Ms. <br />Bettman's points were well-taken: he would prefer to see a line item in the budget that moved <br />money overtly to the Facilities Reserve so the committee could make an overt decision on the <br />expenditure. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for a staff response. <br /> <br />In response to the comments made, Mr. Carlson characterized the proposal as long-term budget <br />planning. The proposal also reflected a decision the council made in the FY01 budget for the <br />dedication of the FY00 exception value; staff was attempting to institutionalize the funding in the <br />capitalization component of space utilitization. The FY00 exception value would be used to pay <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />