Laserfiche WebLink
$100,000 from funds approved in Supplemental Budget #1 for parks maintenance, the <br />next $100,000 from the funds approved in Supplemental Budget #1 for street <br />maintenance, and the final $65,000 from the funds approved in Supplemental Budget #1 <br />for Buckley House and street gang issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz determined from Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary that the motion would not impact the <br />City’s funding commitment for Buckley House. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr believed the funding sources identified were outrageous. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Farr, saying they were both outrageous and wrong. The council had already <br />debated the expenditures involved and the only thing that had changed since its decisions was Lane <br />County’s decreasing ability to fund Buckley House. He said the motion put Buckley House at risk and he <br />did not support it. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling believed that the council would be sending a terrible message if it passed the motion. The <br />average resident did not understand public budgeting and how dollars were earmarked for specific <br />purposes, and when residents heard the City planned to spend $100,000 from the Road Fund they were <br />less likely to support a road repair bond. He believed the expenditures in question needed to remain in <br />place. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Cutsogeorge recalled that the Budget Committee <br />adopted a motion that provided $450,000 for Buckley House and gang prevention, with those <br />expenditures to be determined by the manager. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the funding could come from <br />the amount needed for gang prevention, leaving Buckley House untouched. City Manager Ruiz <br />concurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend the motion to remove the reference <br />to Buckley House. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor determined from City Manager Ruiz that he recommended the revenue sources being discussed <br />because they were already appropriated in the budget and accounted for in the forecast. A different <br />funding source would merely add to the City’s revenue gap. Mr. Pryor further determined that the <br />proposed amount was predicated on the January 29 date. Mr. Pryor asked if a January 11 deadline <br />decreased those costs. City Manager Ruiz believed that the money the City spent on public safety could <br />go down somewhat. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by, Mr. Brown, moved to extend the meeting for ten minutes. The <br />motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Farr voting no. <br /> <br />Responding to a suggestion from Mr. Zelenka that the fund sources be left to the manager’s discretion, <br />City Manager Ruiz indicated he was likely to employ the same funding sources if given that direction. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka shared some of Mr. Poling’s concern about the public perception of the shift from Road <br />Funds. City Manager Ruiz pointed out the council could use more of funding intended for gang <br />prevention. Mr. Zelenka preferred that course. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark reiterated his belief the motion was irresponsible. He pointed out the community had a <br />growing gang problem, which was an immediate public safety issue, and the council had wisely chosen to <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2011 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />