Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Poling recalled that the vote on the garbage hauler fee in the Budget Committee had been 10:4. <br />He thought the Budget Committee should have known there would be a problem with the tax given that it <br />had been voted down twice by the City Council on previous occasions. While he respected the fact that the <br />citizen members of the Budget Committee had taken time to learn and understand the budget, the council had <br />heard from many people beside the members of the Budget Committee in regard to the tax and they were <br />“overwhelmingly” opposed to it. He said there were other funds available and the City might not have to <br />take the $1 million set aside for the overlays. He averred that times changed, things happened, and <br />sometimes a person just had to adapt, improvise, and overcome. <br /> <br />Councilor Ortiz indicated that she had supported the garbage hauler fee. She expressed appreciation for Mr. <br />Barofsky’s testimony and for his time on the Budget Committee. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark noted that Mr. Barofsky had chaired the Budget Committee and had done a very good job <br />of running the meeting. He disagreed regarding the garbage hauler fee. He was glad they had brought up <br />the issue for discussion and consideration, but he recognized that the citizen members were mostly from a <br />particular area of town. He said the council had heard from a lot of different parts of the community and the <br />council was charged with making decisions based on input from across the board. He agreed that they <br />should be looking for other ways to backfill the work that needed to be done. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor acknowledged his role in the process. He had advocated strongly for the Budget Committee <br />to discuss the garbage hauler fee and they had done so. He had supported it at the Budget Committee level. <br />He said situations sometimes changed. He had opted to pass on the revenue source because he believed <br />there were other revenue sources they could pursue. He hoped that they could raise revenue collaboratively. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka thanked Mr. Barofsky for his service as chair of the Budget Committee. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene <br />Urban Renewal Agency at 7:48 p.m. <br /> <br />2. PUBLIC HEARING: <br /> <br />Resolution 1052 of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene Adopting the Budget, Mak- <br />ing Appropriations, and Declaring the Amount of Tax to be Received for the Fiscal Year Begin- <br />ning July 1, 2009, and Ending June 30, 2010 <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one was present who wished to give testimony, <br />he closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting <br />of the Eugene City Council at 7:49 p.m. <br /> <br />3. PUBLIC HEARING: <br /> <br />Resolution 4983 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene <br />for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2008, and Ending June 30, 2009 <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />John Barofsky <br />, 2010 Hubbard Lane, indicated that an item in Supplemental Budget 3 had caught his <br />attention. He explained that it showed that in the Road Capital Projects Fund there had been a change that <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 2 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />