Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
The motion to amend passed, 4:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Fart voting no. <br /> <br />D. Recommendation from Citizen Committee on Mayor and Council Compensation <br /> <br />Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office introduced Jon Belcher, chair of the Citizen Committee on Mayor <br />and Council Compensation. Ms. Walston noted that a public hearing had been tentatively scheduled on <br />February 14, with action to refer the question of council compensation to the voters on February 28. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher introduced other members of the committee present. He described the work done by the <br />committee in arriving at its recommendations and noted the public involvement activities associated with that <br />effort. Mr. Belcher reviewed the committee's recommendation to compensate the mayor with a stipend of <br />$1,500 monthly, and councilors with a stipend of $1,000 monthly. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to accept the report of the Citizen Committee <br /> on Mayor and Council Compensation and to call for a public hearing on February 14, <br /> 2000. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr commended the work of the committee. He said he had changed his initial position on council <br />compensation. He now believed that compensation would allow people whose employers were supportive to <br />cut back on their work hours to take care of council business. He thought $1,000 was a good compromise <br />that would allow people to supplement their reduced income without suffering a reduction in their standard of <br />living. <br /> <br />Referring to page 6 of the report, Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about the inclusion of Section 18(5) <br />regarding compensation for other officers. Mr. Johnson indicated staff could review that section, adding it <br />was part of the current charter. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she had been hoping for a reasonable recommendation she could forward to the voters. <br />She had been concerned that the amount would be so large it would represent a salary rather than a stipend <br />and trigger the need for a charter review to discuss the larger issues of council responsibilities. Regarding the <br />process, Ms. Nathanson said that many of the committee members were probably aware that she had not been <br />happy with the outcome of the first committee process. She said that the committee was composed of people <br />who favored compensating the council, and the City had not fully heard what the public felt about the issue. <br />She said that forwarding the recommendation did not represent her opinion that the amount was right, but <br />rather that the voters should be able to act. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson said he had asked questions about the impact of the change on current and existing employees <br />covered by PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) He said that information would be ready by the <br />time of the hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked the committee for its proposal. He said it was a good proposal and he wanted to let the <br />voters have an opportunity to take a position. Mr. Kelly said that the proposal would let an individual adjust <br />their professional work to serve the public and still keep their heads above water. He noted that a young man <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2000 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />