Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/02/1984 Meeting - e - M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Special Public Hearing C_i ty Counci 1 Chamber April 2, 1984 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, John Ball, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Joyce Nichols, Emily Schue, and Betty Smi th Special meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Foreign Trade Zone Seminar Councilor Wooten announced that the City will be participating in a seminar on foreign trade zones on April 6, 1984. She stated that the seminar will be open to the public and would begin at noon on that date. II. PUBLIC HEARING: HULT CENTER TASK FORCE REPORT (report distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Councilor Obie, task force chairperson, presented the report. He stated that the task force had met every week since appointed and that the work of the task force was not finished. He then reviewed the March 30, 1984, memorandum which outlined the recommendations of the task force on the financing of the Hult Center, he and the other members of the task force making the following comments on the items as 1 i s ted : A. Item 1: Interfund Loans from Federal Revenue Sharing Councilor Obie stated that this recommendation coincided with the recommenda- tion made by the Performing Arts Commission and would move through the budget channels. Ms. Wooten stated that it would be difficult for the Hult Center to repay the loan; therefore, the task force deci ded it woul d be better to focus on the long-range financial solution for the center. Mr. Obie added that it should be stressed that the Hult Center is part of the City of Eugene. B. Item 2: Room Tax Allocation Councilor Obie stated that it was the intent of the task force to meet with the EAF to reach an agreement on the phase-in process. The task force would also meet with the performing arts companies to develop similar agreements. Ms. Wooten commented that the recommendation of the management study stated MINUTES--Eugene City Council Apri 1 2, 1984 Page 1 - e - that all of the room tax allocation be devoted to the Hult Center shortfall and that the City eliminate its contributions of $37,500 to the cultural and recreational activities and the $68,000 to the five major performing arts groups. She stated that she preferred to maintain the cultural and leisure portion of the room tax due to the importance of those activities to the community. She did not feel that shifting the room tax allocations away from the major groups on an incremental basis as the endowments increased meant that the City was shirking its responsibility to those groups; rather, that the responsibility could be addressed through a residency program. Mr. Obie stated that the task force had studied financial statements from the performing groups and felt that a dramatic shift in financing would have a crippling effect on the groups. He stated that any transition should occur on a systematic and planned basis. Ms. Wooten added that the task force hoped that the Eugene Arts Foundation would assume a larger portion of the alloca- tions to the performing groups and maintain its ongoing commitments to the groups. C. Item 3: Residency Status Councilor Obie stated that this recommendation would impact both the Hult Center and the performing arts groups and must be resolved. D. Item 4: EAF Contribution Councilor Wooten stated that the task force had realized that the City could not rely on the $125,000 contribution from the EAF for operating expenses. She hoped that the EAF would continue its capital-side support to the center and the arts groups. She said she was hesitant to take the $477,000 from the General Funds. Referring to a discussion with the City Manager, she believed that these funds would not be taken from any operating or online program. Mr. Hansen said the task force was not recommending from where the funds would be taken, stating that the issue will be addressed by the Budget Committee and the City Council. Ms. Wooten stated that the task force was assuming that other recommendations of the Grant study would be incorporated to make the center more accessible to the residents of Eugene. E. Item 5: Proposed Tax Package Councilor Obie stressed that the proposed tax package would attempt to address all the City's financial problems. He said this program followed the line of thinking from the Grant study. Ms. Wooten stated that the task force realized it was impossible to deal with the Hult Center shortfall on its own. Due to the expiration of the Eugene Plan in the near future, she stated that the council wished to maintain a particular level of services to the city without placing a greater burden on the property owners. She said the objective was to develop a tax package so that the Hult Center shortfall could be accommo- dated in the regular operational City budget. Without a new income stream, some programs would have to be cut. Mr. Hansen commented that the issue was not as clearly discussed as others. He felt that the task force would be reconvened to study the overall funding of the Hult Center if the new tax package were not developed. He added that other revenue opportunities did exist and that any new revenue source would not be used solely to address MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 2, 1984 Page 2 - e - the Hult Center shortfall. Ms. Wooten stated that the solution could also include further cuts in the operations of the center. Mr. Obie stated that the report outlined potential revenue areas but did not imply any priorities within those areas. He stressed that the task force had a great concern with the continued reliance on property taxes and the need to develop alternative revenue sources. Councilor Obie then reviewed four areas listed on Page 2 of the memorandum which outlined the direction for the continued work of the task force. He felt that the EAF wanted to live up to its commitment in the terms specified in the memorandum. In response to a question, Councilor Wooten stated that the tax package mentioned in Item 5 would be applied to the entire City budget, explaining that the task force was assuming that the Hult Center would become a part of the City if the new revenue sources were developed. Mr. Obie, referring to the council's financal planning session, stated that it was the concensus of the council to address the entire deficit. Ms. Wooten added that the shortfall has created problems for all the involved groups. While the numerous groups have realized that they cannot support the center, they have also realized that the center must remain open and accessible. In response to a question, Mr. Gleason stated that staff was still discussing the options to recommend to the Budget Committee on the $125,000 to be alloca- ted from City funds, suggesting that it might come from the capital side of the revenue sharing funds. He stated that the entire $477,000 would come from the capital side if the proposed tax package were not accepted. Mr. Hansen stated that no consensus had been reached by the task force that the funds would be taken from the capital side. He did not feel that the $125,000 was worth the effort of the EAF this year; he hoped that the foundation would regroup for the following year. Mr. Ball said he understood that the EAF would provide a "best effort" toward funding, with the EAF receiving space and services in the center, if its contribution were reduced to $0. Mr. Gleason agreed, adding that the foundation had contributed $2.5 million on the capital side and $600,000 on the operating side of the budget in return for which the City was providing them with 4,500 square feet of space in the center. In response to a question, Mr. Obie stated that the task force could address the issue of whether the space provided would continue regardless of the contribu- tion made by the EAF. He said one recommendation had suggested an income stream based on the three years necessary to recoup the "best effort," but the task force was not suggesting that the EAF abandon the center relative to future capital needs. Councilor Holmer stated that some clarification was needed on the differences between FY 1984-85 and FY 1985-86. Stating that the council had charged the City Manager with presenting a balanced budget for FY 1984-85, he questioned why additional revenue was needed if the two budgets would be balanced, even with the additional $477,000 shortfall the first year and $450,000 the second. Ms. Wooten responded that the City will need additional revenues during the next five to ten years to maintain present service levels. She stated that MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 2, 1984 Pa ge 3 e e - it was not the hope of the Financial Planning Committee to entirely solve the service level problem, but to provide some direction toward its resolution. She commented that the Hult Center might be considered a new program not previously accounted for. Councilor Hansen felt that Mr. Holmer would agree that the City has a shortfall in its capital side. He hoped that the council would not debate a new revenue source, but he felt it should point out what it perceives as shortfalls from income and expenses in the Hult Center. He said the task force had attempted to develop some recommendations for the City Council and the Budget Committee. Based on conversations among its members, he felt the task force believed that other sources of income should be studied. Mr. Obie said the charge of the task force was to develop recommendations on funding the Hult Center through Federal Revenue Sharing or General funds; he said the council could decide that this could be accomplished without any new revenue sources. In response to a question, Councilor Wooten interpreted the task force recommen- dation to suggest that the current Hult Center shortfall be covered by General Fund moneys, but it did not necessarily mean money from property taxes. She felt that this decision was best left to the City Manager. She stated that the task force was not considering the Federal Revenue Sharing funds as separate from the General Fund. Mr. Obie stated that Items 1 and 4 had recommended the use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds. Mr. Ball said he understood that the $594,000 of the interfund loan would come from the revenue sharing funds which had been dedicated to capital side expenditures. Councilor Hansen again stated that the Hult Center was part of the City and the operating fund; he therefore preferred not to use the "revenue sharing" terminology. He said the City Manager will have to decide the source of the funds for the Hult Center. He stressed that any discussion or action should address the Hult Center as being part of the City. Ms. Schue stated that she had raised the General Fund issue to clarify that the fund contained revenue sources other than just property taxes and that covering the Hult Center shortfall with General Fund moneys would not necessarily mean a rise in property taxes. In regard to the $125,000 originally budgeted from the Eugene Arts Foundation, Ms. Wooten added that the task force had discussed several options for covering this figure without impacting programs important to the public. In response to a question, Ms. Schue stated that the General Revenue Sharing funds could be used to cover the $125,000 if the new tax package failed. Mr. Gleason stated that the General Fund contained approximately 100 revenue sources, the major one being property taxes. He said the discretionary money was in the General Fund; therefore, the council was left with using the General Fund, which contained the general shared revenue, to address the deficit. He added that the City Council recommended during its goal setting session that existing services should not be disturbed, leaving only incremental increases through user fees or the reduction of capital projects as sources of revenue. He said the debate on general shared revenues was really on capital projects versus existing operating systems. He stressed that the shortfall would not impact the property taxes. Ms. Smith, referring to Mr. Ball's comment that the revenue sharing moneys going to capital projects being a policy of the council, stated that it was not a policy but a goal of the council, and therefore some flexibility existed. Mr. Ball responded that it was the aim of the council to increase the revenue sharing contribution to the capital side 25 percent each year over a four-year period. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 2, 1984 Page 4 e e e The public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the task force recommendations: Janet Johnston, 2555 Central Boulevard, stated that the citizens, having voted in 1978 to build the Hult Center, were now being asked to finish the job. She stated that the City had already committed itself to involvement in cultural activities as a City service; therefore, it was necessary and appropriate that General Funds be used to cover the Hult Center1s current operating deficits. Since the Hult Center has become an important part of the community and has brought the City national acclaim, she felt that it was in the best interests of the City to make a long-term investment in the center. She congratulated the task force, the Eugene Arts Foundation, and the City Council for their efforts in facing the issues. She said the decisions made today will determine the future of Eugene1s cultural heritage. She urged the council to support the recommendations of the task force. Carroll D. Fentress, 3883 Blanton Road, speaking as a retired citizen of Eugene, stated that he appreciated the views of Councilors Obie, Wooten, and Hansen. He said the task force was to be commended for its progress. Speaking as an lIunpaid consultant,1I he felt the majority of the citizens of Eugene were generous in their support of public services and art groups. He viewed the Eugene Arts Foundation as a private organization pooling its resources to make Eugene a more desirable place in which to live and work. He said the foundation must continue to be governed by its own rules, stating that any interference with its charter of independence would negatively impact any future donations. He suggested that the council accept the principle of the task force recommendations rather than endorsing each specific item. In addition, he suggested that the council pass a motion of appreciation for the work of the Eugene Arts Foundation. Michael Gravino, 2193-1/2 Alder Street, stated that he would not IIhear, see, or speakll evil of the task force1s recommendations. Jon Pincus, 291 West 8th Avenue, Co-Coordinator of the Community Center for the Performlng Arts, commended the task force in its efforts to view the Hult Center's financial problems in regard to its impact on other arts organizations and City services. Having read the Grant study, he said he had not found the comprehensive analysis expected and was therefore glad that the task force was completing the study. Mr. Pincus said he was disturbed by the recommendations that the room tax be allocated solely to the Hult Center and the Visitor1s and Convention Bureau and that the Eugene Arts Foundation focus only on the residents of the center. He said these recommendations presumed that the Parks and Recreation cultural activites would be absorbed by the General Fund and neglected the other grantees of the EAF. He said that two issues which have surfaced during the discussion were the City's recognition that the health of the arts community includes more than just the Hult Center and the need to maintain the present level of City services. He said it was important to provide a sound financial base for the Hult Center and its resident compan- ies, but he also felt that the resident companies and the community-at-large would have a diminished chance for a healthy future unless a thriving arts community outside the Hult Center can be maintained. He said the Hult Center MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 2, 1984 Page 5 - e e can be either a boon to the quality of life or a drain on the energy of Eugene. He said the City must realize the importance of the arts community in creating the quality of life in Eugene. Stating that he had understood that the Hult Center shortfall would be balanced against other social services or the resources available to those groups which cannot afford to use the center, he found that this situation was disturbing, particularly when it was mentioned that other funds would be available during the next fiscal year to cover the $125,000 previously budgeted by the EAF. He felt that an unnecessary conflict was being created for the next fiscal year. Mr. Pincus stated that it was obvious that the City needed new revenue sources. He urged the council to make a commitment to maintain existing service levels and to develop a greater recognition of the importance of maintaining a broad, healthy arts community. He said the involved groups should work together to maintain the quality of life experienced prior to the Hult Center and to develop the resources now present in the city. Speaking in opposition to the task force recommendations: Gordon Elliott, 938 Jefferson Street, stating that he has been a resident of Eugene for over 60 years, commented that he never felt deprived of cultural needs prior to the Hult Center. He felt that career-oriented courses and apprentice training should be established to enlarge the taxpayer base in the city. He also felt that thrift should be encouraged until the citizenry can afford such luxuries as the Hult Center. He suggested that volunteers from the patrons of the arts provide any labor above that supported by ticket sales and that any Federal funds received by the City be used for urgent and practical needs. He said that MacArthur Court, high school auditoriums, and the WOW Hall were adequate to support the local performing arts groups. He said he was having sufficent problems paying his present taxes without having to support the Hult Center. He stressed that the citizens should not be saddled with the center's shortfall. lone Pierron, 1360 Ferry Street, stated that she was confused as to where the City periodically found money to purchase property or to bailout the Hult Center. She stated that if hidden funds did exist for emergencies, then the money should be used to support the basic public services rather than support the Hult Center. While she enjoyed the events at the center, Ms. Pierron stated that the impression had been given when the original bond measure was passed that no other taxes would be demanded in the future. She supported the recommendation of using the room tax allocation to cover the deficit until more private financing can be obtained. She said the role of the Eugene Arts Foundation should be to support the local performing arts groups. She sug- gested that the City consider leasing the center to a management group which specializes in performing arts centers, thereby relieving the City Manager of any present burden and allowing the City to turn its attention to more basic needs. Andy Thompson, 2910 Ferry Street, commended the work of the City Council and the task force, but he questioned some of their basic assumptions. He asked why the option of mothballing the Hult Center was not considered. He felt that the citizens had purchased a white elephant and that $500,000 was an MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 2, 1984 Page 6 e excessive amount to come from the General Fund. He felt that it was inapprop- riate to use a broad-base tax to cover the deficit of the center when a percentage of the citizens can not afford tickets to Hult Center events. He felt that the WOW Hall type of operation was more appropriate to the community. He questioned how long the City could manage to maintain an image that it cannot afford. Dave Sweet, 590 West 12th Avenue. stated that he had previously suggested to the task force at its public hearing in March that the Hult Center be wired for cable and satellite transmissions as a revenue source. He suggested that shows could be sold to cable networks. a percentage going to the Hult Center. Referring to the task force recommendations. Mr. Sweet commented that no new revenue sources had been presented. He said the proposed tax package would not tax everyone in the community; he felt that the citizens deserved more responsible representation than that which proposed no solution as the only alternative to imposing a greater burden on the taxpayers. Art Erickson. 1470 East Briarcliff. stated that he had understood that the Hult Center would not present a burden to the taxpayers when it was finally in operation. Now the citizens were being asked to give $500.000 from City funds to subsidize the Hult Center while some of the basic public services were being cut. e John Bauguess, 364 East Broadway #4, stated that the testimony being presented reflected a city which has lost its identify. He said the Eugene Arts Founda- tion, having first developed the idea for the center. had now left the City with the burden of funding. He felt that the Eugene Arts Foundation represented a problem in the ethical relationship with the City. He felt sorry for those citizens who cannot afford the cost of Hult Center tickets but who must still pay for the center while the Eugene Arts Foundation was being given a loan to continue its operations. Clyde Baxter. 1790 Hayes. speaking as a citizen and a candidate for the City Council from Ward 7, stated that the Hult Center was a beautiful center but that the City had overextended itself. He said he was displeased with the task force report. suggesting that the center would best be operated by the private sector. He felt that the other financing proposals mentioned in the report were ludicrous because any type of tax imposed on the citizens of Eugene would still be a burden. He stated that the only solution was for the City to liquidate the center to private enterprises as soon as possible and return to providing essential services to the citizens. Tom Heusel, 3318 Olive Street. an organizer of Citizens for Open Government and a member of Sacred Heart Hospital's Activities Council. referred to a letter which he had received from Councilor Wooten on the naming of the Hult Center. In the letter Ms. Wooten stated that "while she would like to have rejected the Hult's offer, the donation would be a relief to the taxpayers not to have to subsidize the deficit through increased taxes or the General Fund". Mr. Heusel stated that the involvement of the Eugene Arts Foundation began in 1978 when the proposed center was projected to have an operating deficit of e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Apri 1 2, 1984 Pa ge 7 e e - $100,000 which would be offset by private donations and the room tax. He said that the majority of the donations mentioned by the foundation at that time have proven to be very tentative. Briefly reviewing the donations. Mr. Heusel stated that the end result was that the City cannot depend on the EAF for funding because of its financial difficulties. He felt the City has failed to monitor the Eugene Arts Foundation and what was to have been 25 percent of the offsetting revenue for the Hult Center. Mr. Heusel felt that the Hult Center must survive in order to lure industry into Eugene. but he suggested that any donations be sent directly to the City of Eugene, thereby saving the 30 percent used by the foundation for its own operations. George V. Stathakis. 830 Hilyard, stated that while he was in favor of support- ing the Hult Center. the report has not mentioned the source of the support or given any assurance that the support will not come from basic services. He said the City Council should present a definite financial plan and assure the citizens that the shortfall will not affect basic services. He felt that the WOW Hall should continue to receive the room tax money, stating that it is also part of the arts community. Mr. Stathakis suggested that the management of the Hult Center should be opened to competitive bidding to relieve the City of that burden. He also stressed that efforts should be made to rid the City of its snob image by becoming more involved with the citizens who need employment. Also speaking in support of the task force's recommendations: Camilla Pratt. 375 Broken Oak. complimented the task force on its recommenda- tions for the room tax moneys. stating that she felt the proposals were fair. She stated that some of the testimony presented had angered her. stressing that it was irresponsible to suggest that the City turn its back on a major capital investment because of a few management errors. She stated that many people still supported the center even though they were not present at the hearing. She stated that the issue was one of priorities. explaining that many people spend an amount comparable to the cost of tickets on alcohol and movies. She did not think the ticket prices were the main issue. She sug- gested that more effort be placed in developing the market outside Eugene. She stated that destination-point tourism. of which the Hult Center was key. was a factor in the development of Eugene as a convention center. As the general manager of a chamber orchestra. she stated that she has enjoyed performing in the Soreng Theater and that the group's audience has increased due to the relocation. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. The meeting was recessed at 9:04 and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. Councilor Wooten, responding to the testimony presented. stated that Hult Center Executive Director Dick Reynolds had commented on the subject of cable and satellite hookups for the center at the first task force public hearing. Mr. Reynolds had stated that a market for the Hult Center shows was not currently available and that the proposal was not cost-effective. Ms. Wooten stated that she would support any effort to explore this option. but she stressed the factor that it was not currently financially feasible. Referring MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 2. 1984 Page 8 e e e to the comments on taking money from basic City operations to support the Hult Center, she stressed her personal opinion that it was essential that basic services be protected. However, she stated that the City did not have the option of selling or mothballing the center. Responding to Ms. Pierron's question on the source of City funds, Ms. Wooten explained that the money used to purchase land and suggested for the Hult Center was working capital funds not necessarily appropriate for specific programs. She agreed with Mr. Hansen's comments that the City cannot continue to support one program at the expense of others. She stressed that the City cannot afford to deal only in short-term solutions. Mayor Keller, responding to the issue of the private sector taking over the Hult Center operation, stated that it had previously been decided that the public sector would operate the center. He stressed that any short-term effort in another direction would not be in the City's or the center's best interests. While everyone had hoped that the center could operate without a subsidy, Mayor Keller felt that this idea had been an error in judgment rather than the result of stupidity or naivity. He felt the suggestion to mothball the center was unacceptable, based on the $10 million spinoff from the center to the local economy. He said the center and the accompanying culture was important to the community. In regard to the issue of the City Council lacking the proper attitude or direction on the center, he felt that people would continue to enjoy the center and would decide that the council had acted in the best interests of the city. He said the council had recog- nized that the center's operation needed some adjustment and had decided that a study by an outside firm was appropriate. Councilor Hansen stated that the Hult Center was a good facility and must be recognized as a long-term addition to the community. While the short-term operation will have some effect on the City, he believed that the center will be a long-term asset. He hoped that the council would support the recommenda- tions of the task force. Mr. Hansen stressed that the center was a vital part of the community that must be given continued support. Councilor Ball stated that funding for the Hult Center was substantively different than other City funding due to the accessibility of the center as a public service. He stated that the ticket prices presented a burden to some residents, therefore an equity question was present. Mr. Ball emphasized that the citizens had been promised that they would not have to pay for the center out of any tax funds and that the City Council must honor that promise. He said that obtaining support for any future program would be more difficult if the promise were broken. He also stated that the issue of the source of the revenue to support the center must be confronted. He said all the solutions presented in the report were dependent on tentative future actions and that the council was being asked to provide funding for the center in return for something which might not occur next fall. Councilor Schue agreed with Mr. Hansen that the center was a long-term asset, adding that it was initiated by the voters and not the council. She said the center has already brought money and jobs to Eugene after a short time, comparing the center to the Shakespeare Festival in Ashland which was started MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 2, 1984 Page 9 e e e in the 1930s. She recognized that the center has problems but also has solutions. Referring to the concern about the accessiblity of the center to all residents, she said the management study contained recommendations on making tickets available for low-income people. She felt the general impres- sion of the council was that the City needed more money to fund needed services, and she recognized Mr. Ball's concern for the source of any revenue. She stated that she will support the restaurant tax proposal, but she added that it must be part of a package to address other financial problems. She stressed that the council and the Budget Committee have much work left to do; she also stressed that the citizens must realize that the problems of the center will be solved. Ms. Smith moved to accept the report of the Hult Center Task Force. Councilor Smith commended the task force for its work, stating that any comments received by the council had been generally supportive of the Hult Center. She felt that the council was headed in the right direction toward a solution to the center's financial problems. Councilor Obie stated that he would second the motion if it included the motion to implement the recommendations of the task force. Ms. Smith amended her motion to include the implementation of the task force recommendations. Mr. Obie seconded the amended motion. Councilor Holmer stated that he appreciated the efforts of the task force in addressing the issues and bringing its recommendations to the council. He said he agreed with the comments of the other councilors of the value of the center. He stated that he was convinced by the Mayor's comments that Item 5 of the task force recommendations should not be adopted because he felt the center must be a part of the City's operating budget. He also questioned the amendment to the original motion. He stated that he will vote for the motion because it does not currently act on any of the recommendations. He supported the idea of accepting the report as the basis for future discussion. Councilor Obie also stated that he had some concern with Item 5 until the City Council and its Financial Planning Subcommittee has finished its work. He agreed that the task force was not asking for additional revenue at that time. Mr. Obie stated that he has observed the development of the Hult Center and that it was questionable whether the councilor any other group had stated that the center would be developed at no cost to the voters. Nonetheless, the community voted for the center and now both accompanying problems and opportun- ities existed. Mr. Obie stated that the center was a great asset to the community and must be incorporated into the regular City budget to solve its financial problems. He stated that he will support the recommendations of the task force, stressing that the City must move ahead with the center and its problems. Councilor Nichols stated that she agreed with Mr. Obie and Ms. Schue that it would be irresponsible for the council to turn its back on the center. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 2, 1984 Page 10 e also shared the concerns of the citizens in regard to the accessibility of the center based on ticket prices. She said she will support the recommendations of the task force in order to move toward a solution. Councilor Wooten stated that the report was a compromise of varying points of view. While she recognized that some of the councilors did not agree with some of its points, she felt that the positive side of the report was in continuing the Hult Center operations without attacking the funds for existing programs. In addition, the task force has developed a process for the use of room tax funds in support of culture and leisure programs and has studied methods of furthering the City's relationship with the arts foundations for better budgeting information in the future. She stressed that the City cannot continue funding the Hult Center without a new revenue source. She stated that she will also support the motion. e Councilor Ball, quoting from the January 15, 1984, edition of the Register- Guard, which in turn quoted the City of Eugene1s 1978 Bond Election Fact Sheet, stated that "rents will be scaled to make the facilities affordable for local users. While such practices may result in an operational deficit, multiple sources of offsetting funds. . . are estimated of producing revenues well in excess of any projected deficit." Stating that the agenda item had been listed only for information, he raised the procedural question of whether the council could vote to accept the report and implement its recommendations rather than just receive the report. City Manager Micheal Gleason stated that the council can take action at any time when it is in a formal meeting. Mr. Ball stated that he would vote against the motion and the amendment, stating that the amendment was significantly different than just accepting the item for future discussion. He felt the amendment to implement the recommendations would cut the Budget Committee out of the process. Mr. Gleason explained that the first step in any implementation would be to present an Executive Budget to the Budget Committee. He stated that no action could be taken without the formal action by the Budget Committee. Mr. Ball stated that he will vote against the motion based on his previous comments. He believed that inadequate attention has been given to the question of whether the council was breaching a promise to the citizens of Eugene. Councilor Schue, referring to the task force report, stated that she was voting to implement the consideration of the recommendations presented and was not agreeing to everything listed in the memorandum. Councilor Wooten stated that she appreciated the thoughts of Mr. Ball, but she questioned how the present situation should be resolved. Regardless of how the Hult Center was originally presented to the voters, she said the council was presently faced with a problem for which a fair solution must be found. Mayor Keller stated that the City had hoped that the room tax would cover any deficit of the Hult Center. He said he had strongly advocated that other taxes not be used in support of the center, but now it must be recognized that the previous expectations have proven incorrect. Some action must be taken so that the City can move forward. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 2, 1984 Page 11 . Councilor Ball stated that he was prepared to move forward in support of the Hult Center, but he felt that additional discussion was needed on implementing a financial package that did not include General Fund property taxes. He stated that other alternatives were present for discussion. While the long-term package for the Hult Center made sense, he felt that it also hid the center's funding among other services. He felt that the center was not the same as other City services and therefore should not be adding into the same funding base. Councilor Wooten stated that she partially supported the restaurant tax to fund the Hult Center shortfall. She said there were not sufficient votes on the council to deal with the Hult Center on a single-revenue basis; the task force recommendations were a compromise to deal with the center's issues in an equit- able manner. She said the council must face the problem, adding that the compromise provided some forward movement. Councilor Obie called for the question. The motion carried, 7:1; Mr. Obie, Ms. Wooten, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Holmer, Ms. Nichols, and Ms. Smith voting aye; Mr. Ball voti ng nay. Mayor Keller thanked the members of the task force for their work, stating that the process has been worthwhile. He added that the task force still has some work before it. e III. ANNOUNCEMENTS City Manager Micheal Gleason announced the following meetings: A. Budget Committee re: Executive Budget April 10, 1984 7:30 p.m. McNutt Room, City Hall B. City Council Dinner/Work Session re: Long-Term Financial Planning Apri 1 11, 1984 5:30 p.m. McNutt Room, City Hall At 9:54 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, M~~ Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Thorn Strunk) ~ TS:pv/CM26a7 MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 2, 1984 Page 12