Laserfiche WebLink
and become a dedicated fund because council had indicated it wanted all of the fees paid by property owners <br />to remain with the program; this approach would allow better tracking of program revenue. <br /> <br />Councilor Ortiz said she did not want to see revenue from fees simply collect in a fund and not be spent. <br />She asked for an accounting of program revenues and expenditures. She asked if the General Fund was <br />currently paying for part of the cost of program support costs. Mr. Ruiz said the General Fund was <br />subsidizing City overhead costs. Planning and Development Executive Director Susan Muir explained that <br />a dedicated fund would provide better cost accounting for Central Services costs such as information <br />technology, phone service and facilities. She said the General Fund was not subsidizing the program, but <br />those expenses were not being accounted for as a cost recovery method that demonstrated the program was <br />paying for itself. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark asked about the amount of money that was carried over during the first two years of the <br />program and the total costs that were being shifted from the General Fund. Ms. Nicholas said approximate- <br />ly $50,000 was carried over one year and $70,000 the next year. Ms. Muir said the Central Services costs <br />were about $33,000 per year. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark noted that would still leave carryover funds and asked if a new position would be added to <br />enforce the new regulations. Ms. Muir said there were no plans to add another staff position and the <br />department was still working to “right size” the program, which was still relatively new, to balance the fees <br />with the budget and staff. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark asked if the program budget message would indicate the intent for use of excess funds <br />within the program on a long-term basis. Ms. Muir said retaining the fees within the program was part of <br />the “right-sizing” process while actual operating expenses were determined. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark commented that an earlier suggestion was to reduce the fees to property owners if the <br />amount being collected was more than required to support the program and recommended staff considers <br />that option. Mr. Ruiz said the intent was to maintain a reasonable fund balance in the program and adjust <br />fees administratively as appropriate. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka closed the public hearing. <br /> <br /> <br />2. PUBLIC HEARING <br /> An Ordinance Concerning the Police Auditor; Amending Sections 2.450, 2.452, 2.454, 2.456 <br /> of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing for an Effective Date for Implementation. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. <br /> <br />Carol Berg-Caldwell <br />, Augusta Street, Eugene, said her initial concerns that formation of the Police Auditor <br />Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC) would result in dilution of the oversight system had not been <br />realized. She expressed her appreciation for those who served on the committee and the extent to which they <br />valued the public input process. She urged the council to reconvene the PAORC to address the remaining <br />issues of an appeal process, concurrency of administrative and criminal investigations and complaints <br />against the Police Chief. She wanted the oversight system to be “personality-proofed.” She asserted that the <br />council’s actions against Interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds violated the external oversight ordinance <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 3 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />