Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/11/1992 Meeting u_ -- --- ---------~- e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall August 11, 1992 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Shawn Boles, Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan, Debra Ehrman, Bobby Green, Randy MacDonald (5:45 p.m), Paul Nicholson, Kaye Robinette. The meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Mill er. I. WORK SESSION: EUGENE DECISIONS The council agreed to review the components marked for further discussion on the score sheets by a majority of councilors. Mr. Miller said that the council would conduct a series of straw votes as it came to closure on components during the discussion. Five votes would be required to include a component in the strategy. e Following a question from Ms. Bascom, the council agreed that, after initial strategy development, it could revisit those components not identified for inclusion in the strategy. Tony Mounts of the Administrative Services Department facilitated the meeting. He reviewed the display materials. Mr. Mounts noted that the cost savings realized by those items marked by councilors for inclusion in a draft final strategy at this point totaled $2.2 million. Mr. Rutan asked staff to describe how the proposed shutdown of the Trojan Nuclear Plant would affect the Eugene Decisions process target. Warren Wong, Administrative Services Director, reported that he had assigned analysis staff to the issue. Mr. Rutan suggested that staff be asked to prepare a rough estimate of the impact of the shutdown on Eugene for the council's review. The council accepted Mr. Rutan's suggestion, but agreed that it would not change the process target. Mr. MacDonald arrived at the meeting at 5:45 p.m. Ms. Ehrman reminded staff that she had requested additional information on the restaurant tax not included in the packet materials, saying she wished to have more information about cities with restaurant taxes located in counties without such a tax. Mr. Mounts said staff would prepare that information. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 1 5:30 p.m. e The council discussed Component 2A, Animal Control: Enforcement/Shelter (Reduce Field Enforcement 25 percent; realizes $35,000) and Component 3C, Animal Control: Enforcement/Shelter (Reduce Field Enforcement 50 percent; realizes $70,000). Responding to a question from Mr. Robinette, Mr. Mounts explained that the two components were identified for further consideration as neither received enough votes for automatic inclusion in the strategy but together received sufficient support (five votes) to warrant discussion. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Mounts said that the City's contribution to Lane County's animal enforcement program paid for four animal control officers inside Eugene. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to include Compo- nent 2A in the draft strategy. Mr. Nicholson asked why the City could not collect enough fines to support the program. City Manager Mike Gleason responded that the goal of field enforce- ment was not to collect dogs, but rather to locate owners of stray dogs for the purpose of licensing. The cost of enforcement and the revenues resulting from licensing and fines resulted in what Mr. Gleason termed a "push." Ms. Ehrman suggested that enforcement occur on a complaint basis, rather than by means of field enforcement officers driving the streets searching for stray animals. e The motion passed, 6:2. The council discussed Component 4A/B/C, Animal Control: Spay-Neuter Clinic (Eliminate; realizes $50,000). Mr. Boles asked for more information about the clinic's ability to reduce its costs by raising fees. He suggested that the council decide if it wished to raise fees, and how much of an increase was appropriate. Mr. Rutan suggested that the issue before the council was whether to eliminate General Fund support for the clinic, and take on the challenge of "doing things differently." Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Mr. Robinette, to eliminate General Fund support for the Spay-Neuter Clinic. Ms. Ehrman said that the staff analysis indicated that an increase in fees would bring the clinic's fees up to the level charged by certain private sector veterinarians. She expressed surprise that administering shots comprised half of the clinic's business. Noting that the focus of the many letters received in support of the clinic was the need to control the pet population, Ms. Ehrman suggested that, were the council to continue to support the clinic, services such as administering shots be eliminated. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 2 5:30 p.m. e Mr. Gleason said that administering shots was revenue-positive for the City. Mr. Mounts observed that Council Resolution 3456 establishing the clinic specifically referenced the need to control infectious diseases in the animal population. Ms. Ehrman indicated her interest in a surcharge for service on nonresidents. Ms. Bascom said she favored reduction of General Fund support for the clinic but not at the level proposed by Mr. Rutan. She said that the public outcry over the proposal to eliminate the clinic should be respected and argued for innovative approaches to clinic funding. Mr. Robinette said he was disappointed that staff was unable to provide specific figures regarding nonresident use of the clinic. He suggested that the council set a target for the clinic's General Fund support and refer the target to staff and the clinic's constituency. Mr. Nicholson questioned how elimination of General Fund support would benefit the clinic, and suggested a more flexible approach, such as reducing support conditional upon funding by the other jurisdictions. Mr. Boles said that he believed elimination of the clinic was "penny-wise and pound-foolish" due to the impact of the elimination on field enforcement and public safety. He asked if the clinic was constrained from raising its fees by the resolution. Mr. Mounts said fee increases must be approved by the council. Mr. Boles suggested that the motion be reworded to include council e encouragement for the clinic to raise its fees to supplant General Fund support. Mr. MacDonald suggested that reduction of field enforcement meant increased need to prevent unwanted animals. He suggested that, rather than eliminate General Fund support, the council consider raising fees, establish a nonresi- dential fee differential, and examine ways to increase operational efficiency at the clinic. Ms. Ehrman suggested that the sustainability of the clinic was an important issue. She said if clinic fees reach the same level as private sector fees, it would be difficult to justify clinic operation. Mr. Mounts suggested that the council set a cost-recovery target for the clinic that could be evaluated on an annual basis to determine if the target can be met. The motion failed, 5:3. Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to establish a cost- recovery target for the Spay-Neuter Clinic of reducing General Fund support by a minimum 50 percent ($25,000) over a period of three years. The motion passed unanimously. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 3 5:30 p.m. e At the suggestion of Mr. Boles, the council agreed to review those discussion items involving larger dollar amounts. The council discussed Component 23A, Building Permits/Plan Checking (Increase Fees 63 Percent; realizes $1,050,000). Mr. Rutan asked how the council's current targets for cost recovery related to the recommendations made by the Building Construction Advisory Committee Task Team (BCACTT). Mr. Mounts said that the strategy component assumes 100 percent cost-recovery through fees, a 63 percent increase over current levels. The City is currently at about 65 percent of full cost-recovery. He said that the BCACTT recommendation would realize about $500,000 in savings to the General Fund. In response to a question from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Robinette said that the task team recommended that General Fund support be halved. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Miller, Mr. Gleason said that the task team recommended approximately 45 percent increases in fees, charging for certain City services that are provided free at the current time, and other operational changes to provide the savings to the General Fund. Ms. Ehrman pointed out that the council had an adopted policy regarding cost recovery for services. Mr. Boles said that the Developmental Services Financing Study had examined the City's current level of support for such services as those offered by the Permit and Information Center (PIC). The e study identified the proportion of those costs that should be borne by the private sector and established a changeover plan with a net impact across five years of $2 million on the General Fund. Mr. Boles said that the target proposed by the task team was considerably below the council's adopted target. He added that the City was implementing the study over a period of years to avoid a sudden impact on the community. The figure in Component 23A repre- sented those dollars not yet realized under the council's policy. Ms. Bascom said that the other cost-saving recommendations in the task team's report should be considered by the council. Mr. MacDonald agreed, and said the council should look to a mix of approaches to reduce the costs of the service to the General Fund. He suggested such an effort would take several years. Mr. Boles said that Component 23A reflected the council's current policy. Mr. Nicholson said the argument at the core of the task team's report was that some proportion of the functions of the center were services to the public and not to the developer, and that the public should be responsible for those costs. If costs could be reduced through efficiencies and "doing things differently," the cost to the public could be reduced. Mr. Nicholson asked Mr. Boles how the council policy addressed the issue raised by the task team. In response, Mr. Boles said that the Developmental Services Financing Study e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 4 5:30 p.m. ---- e recognized the merit of the argument put forth in the task team's report. The study identified the proportional public/private cost for each service. Of the $4 million in services currently provided by the City, $2 million was underwritten by the public. Mr. Robinette asked how much of the component total reflected local code enforcement. Mr. Gleason estimated the total at about $300,000. Mr. Boles emphasized that the public benefit represented in siting requirements were recognized in the Developmental Services Financing Study and reflected in its recommendations. Mr. Miller maintained that the task team's report was more refined than the Developmental Services Financing Study, and suggested that the council honor the work of the task team in its strategy development. Mr. Mounts said that staff could prepare information for council regarding the cost recovery percentages realized by the BCACTT's recommendations. Mr. Boles said that the council should also review the recommendations of the Develop- mental Services Financing Study. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. MacDonald, to include Compo- nent 23A in the draft strategy, with the target established in the component to be achieved by a combination of fee increases and any cost savings identified through the BCACTT report. Mr. MacDonald asked if there was coordination of information from the Develop- e mental Services Financing Study and the task team report. Mr. Mounts said that there had been linkage between the study and task team's work, resulting in a direct relationship between the results in examination of a cost-recovery rate. He noted that the dollar figure represented in the component did not reflect fire review costs. Mr. Rutan maintained that implementation of the BCACTT report would not result in recovery of the figure identified in Component 23A due to the disagreement between the report's definition of public and private benefits and council adopted policy. He suggested that the report could be used to identify some opportunities to reach the target. Mr. Robinette asked if Mr. Boles' motion encompassed any savings resulting from changes in local ordinances. Mr. Boles said yes. He added his intent was to lower the fee increase to the degree possible while still recovering the target established in the component. Mr. Nicholson said that the approach suggested in the motion was muddled. He said any cost savings that could be realized from management efficiencies should be pursued. Mr. Nicholson said it was legitimate to re-examine the public/private cost proportions identified in the Developmental Services Financing Study for appropriateness. However, he believed that the recommen- dations of the task team's report were not relevant to the discussion. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 5 5:30 p.m. e Mr. Boles noted that the task team was appointed due to the financing study's requirement that members of the development community be consulted on an annual basis regarding fees. He suggested that the City could reduce the cost of service delivery, and in turn the component target, by implementing the task team's recommendations. Mr. Nicholson asked if the motion reflected a continued move toward 100 percent cost recovery as defined in the financing study. Mr. Miller said yes. Mr. Green asked for clarification of the relationship of the $548,000 identi- fied by the task team as General Fund costs to council policy. Mr. Miller said that the cost represented half of the savings that would have been realized by implementation of council policy unless other savings were found. Mr. Nicholson said that the task team recommendation means that 50 percent of the costs identified in council policy as private responsibility will become the public's responsibility. He maintained that adoption of the motion was moving away from the principles reflected in the financing study. The motion passed, 5:3. Mr. Miller requested that staff prepare information contrasting the recommen- dations of the financing study and the recommendations of the task team. e Mr. Boles endorsed Mr. Miller's request, adding that the motion represented continuation of the recommendations in the finanCing study, which was for full cost recovery of some services, considerably less for other services, and continued provision of 50 percent General Fund subsidies to all processes involved. Mr. Miller reminded the council that it would revisit the draft strategy and review and revise its components prior to final adoption. The council discussed Component 31C, Code Compliance (Eliminate; realizes $400,000). Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Mr. Robinette, to reduce General Fund support for the service by $200,000. Mr. Nicholson asked Mr. Rutan the rationale for his target. Mr. Rutan responded that he believed there had been sufficient discussion at the council level regarding the need to "do things differently." He believed that the target could be realistically achieved by doing things differently. Mr. Robinette agreed, saying he believed that some functions of the service could be performed privately. He endorsed Mr. Rutan's target as reasonable. The motion passed, 7:1. The council discussed Component 36C, land Use Permits (Reduction to Mandated e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 6 5:30 p.m. --~- e Services Only; realizes $325,000). Mr. Boles questioned whether the City was at the mandated level at the present time. Responding to a question from Mr. Mounts, Hillary Kittleson of the Planning and Development Department indicated that the reduction would result in greatly reduced public notice and extensive changes to Eugene Code Chapter 9 (land Use). Mr. Boles pointed out that the component was from Strategy C and designed as a potential response to reduced revenues. He termed the reduction draconian. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to drop the compo- nent from consideration at this time. Ms. Ehrman noted that the survey feedback indicated the public did not rank the service highly. The motion passed, 7:1. The council discussed Component 35A/B, land Use Permits (Increase Fees 150 Percent; realizes $110,000). Mr. Robinette moved, seconded by Mr. MacDonald, to include It Component 35A/B in the draft strategy. Responding to a question from Mr. Robinette, Mr. Gleason clarified that the 150 percent increase represented an increase of 2-1/2 times over current levels. Mr. Mounts noted that current cost recovery was about 25 to 30 percent. Ms. Kittleson said that adoption of the component would bring cost recovery to 50 percent, a figure above the recommendations in the financing study. Ms. Ehrman said she would be unable to support the motion as she believed the increase was too great and the public benefit of the service significant. Mr. MacDonald agreed with Ms. Ehrman's comments. He suggested a smaller increase of 50 percent (realizes about $40,000) as a modification to the motion. Mr. Robinette accepted the modification. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Nicholson suggested that staff prepare an analysis showing whether the City is required by the State to perform all the functions included in its land use permitting function. Mr. Gleason proposed that staff examine the comments submitted by councilors with the score sheets, and produce a document summarizing the council's expectations regarding services and the relationships between services, particularly in the area of Development Services. The council approved Mr. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 7 5:30 p.m. e Gleason's proposal. The council agreed by consensus to drop from further consideration Component 26B, Business Assistance Team (Merge With Metropolitan Partnership). The council took a ten-minute break at 7 p.m. The council resumed its discussion by examining Component 38C, Convention and Visitors Bureau (Eliminate Contract; realizes $300,000). The council briefly discussed a proposal made by the hotel/motel industry to raise the Transient Room Tax by two percent to supplant the money currently directed to the Convention and Visitors Bureau by Eugene and Springfield. Mr. Robinette asked how the proposal affected the component. Ms. Ehrman said that the result would be elimination of the City's contract with the bureau. Mr. Robinette suggested that he supported inclusion of Component 38C in the draft strategy if it was clear that elimination of the contract was based on the County's support for the room tax increase as proposed by the hotel/motel industry. Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to defer discussion of Component 38C. The motion failed, 5:3. The council discussed the hotel/motel industry proposal further. Mr. Rutan e expressed concern that there was an expectation on the part of industry as to where the dollars currently allotted for the contract would be spent. Mr. MacDonald agreed. He said while he believed the concept to be a good one, he urged that there be specificity about both the expenditures planned and the dollars involved before agreement was reached to avoid such disagreements as had been experienced in the past over how room tax dollars were spent. Mr. Boles agreed with Mr. MacDonald's remarks. He pointed out that, even were funds partitioned as proposed by the hotel/motel industry, the amount avail- able was inadequate to eliminate General Fund subsidies to the Hult Center. Responding to Mr. Nicholson's observation regarding the original resolution establishing the room tax and the stipulation in the resolution that the moneys be directed toward the performing arts, Ms. Ehrman said that the ordinance had been modified to encompass other activities. Mr. Nicholson said that the voters had approved the original resolution in the belief they were funding the arts. Mr. Miller said that he would favor a motion indicating that, were the County to increase the room tax as proposed, the council supported elimination of the moneys dedicated to the contract and would direct those dollars to the Hult Center. Mr. Robinette moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to include Compo- nent 38C in the draft strategy. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 8 5:30 p.m. e Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Robinette said that he was reluctant to earmark any savings realized from contract elimination at this time. Mr. Nicholson agreed, saying he preferred to wait until the County acted on the hotel/motel industry proposal. Mr. Rutan said that he opposed the motion as he did not favor elimination of the bureau. Mr. Robinette said that was not his intent; he stressed that the votes being cast were straw ballots. Mr. Nicholson said that the intent of the motion was to eliminate General Fund support for the contract. Ms. Bascom said that the bureau was funded from the Transient Room Tax Fund. Mr. Green said that the bureau believed that the City could redirect the money it dedicated to the contract and spend it elsewhere, such as the Hult Center. He said that would be a council decision. The industry supported an increase in the tax for the sake of targeting the increase toward bureau operations. Mr. MacDonald suggested that adoption of the motion implied council assent in a room tax increase to 9-1/2 percent. He said that was an issue for the marketability of Eugene as a convention destination. Mr. MacDonald added that room tax dollars are General Funds. Ms. Bascom said it was not her perception that room taxes were General Funds. They are directed toward specific uses. She said that the visitor industry believes the Hult Center to be critical to its success, and had developed its proposal in order to assure that center operations continued. e Mr. Robinette indicated that, were the County to decide against a room tax increase, his position on the component would change. The motion passed, 5:3. Mr. Boles stressed the preliminary nature of the decisions being made at the meeting for the benefit of those in the audience. Mr. Green agreed to represent the council before the Lane Board of County Commissioners at its hearing August 12, seeking further information about and indicating the City's interest in the proposal made by the hotel/motel industry for an increase in the Transient Room Tax. The council discussed Component 48C, Special Events/Eugene Celebration (Eliminate; realizes $250,000). Mr. Robinette pointed out that the cost of special events and the Eugene Celebration would be sufficient to operate a new fire station. He opposed the use of property taxes to conduct what he termed a "$250,000 party." Mr. Mounts clarified that the cost of the Celebration was about $100,000; the remainder of the money supported other special events, such as The Race and the summer concerts in the parks. Mr. MacDonald said he appreciated Mr. Robinette's point but believed that the e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 9 5:30 p.m. e feedback the City received in the Eugene Decisions process was supportive of an approach that was not based solely on cuts. Mr. MacDonald said that special events contributed to the unique nature of the community. Mr. Boles referred the council to the display materials and pointed out that the council's actions on service elimination were beyond the level the community indicated was its preferred mix. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to drop Component 48C from further consideration at this time. Responding to a suggestion from Ms. Ehrman that the Eugene Celebration be cut to one and one-half days, Mr. Robinette said there were no savings realized by the reduction. Mr. Nicholson said special events were part of the community's cultural amenities. He suggested that the City did not want to further narrow its customer base. He urged the council to retain special events. Mr. Green suggested that the funding for special events was insufficient to support a fire station for long. He said that the event has become synonymous with Eugene and predicted its future importance to the community. Mr. Miller spoke in support of recovering the costs of special events from those events aimed at adults in the community. He suggested that the City e charge adults to enter entertainment venues at City-sponsored events such as the Eugene Celebration. Mr. Boles suggested that the volunteer organizers of the event were aware the community could not continue to subsidize the Celebration at current levels. Responding to the comments made by Mr. Miller, Mr. MacDonald said he agreed it was necessary to examine all the possible ways of offsetting the costs of special events, but pointed out that the special events in question provided entertainment for low-income residents who could not afford to attend events at the Hult Center. Mr. Nicholson favored recovering as much of the cost of the Celebration as possible using a voluntary approach. Ms. Bascom cautioned the council that the public feedback did not indicate strong support for special events. The motion passed, 6:2. The council discussed Component 18A/C, Lands/Park Trees/Hendricks Park (Reduce to Minimum Maintenance; realizes $185,000). Mr. MacDonald pointed out that the public had not expressed overwhelming support for the component. He asked how a citizen was to gauge what minimum maintenance was, and suggested the council's knowledge regarding the sustain- e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 10 5:30 p.m. ---~ e ability of the strategy was not shared effectively with the citizens. Mr. MacDonald said he did not think that the level of maintenance implied in the component would result in adequate asset maintenance. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to include Compo- nent 18A/C in the draft strategy. Ms. Ehrman expressed the hope that the cut in maintenance would be offset by the use of volunteers. Mr. Nicholson referred to the success of reduced maintenance in the cities of Salem and Corvallis and said it was reasonable for Eugene to follow those examples. Mr. Robinette expressed skepticism that the City could achieve the entire $185,000 in savings represented in the component and suggested it be consid- ered a target. He indicated his support for maintenance of the City's parks assets, but said that the component could provide the City with opportunities to explore doing things differently. Mr. Rutan said he had voted to drop both this component and the component calling for minimum maintenance of the Owens Rose Garden. He called the parks showcases for the community that contributed to the quality of life. Mr. Rutan questioned whether that quality could be maintained at the level proposed, and wondered what the term "minimum maintenance" actually meant. e Mr. Miller agreed, and asked if there was a level of reduced maintenance that would not damage the quality of the parks. Mr. Boles indicated his opposition to the motion. Mr. Green suggested that the council agree on a definition of minimum mainte- nance. He said that such maintenance as weeding could be the responsibility of volunteers, while the City continued to water and mow. Mr. Gleason said that the City would redesign its parks maintenance structure, reevaluate its plantings, and attempt to secure volunteer assistance. He did not believe the parks would continue to have a showcase appearance, but some level of mowing, watering, and trimming would continue. Mr. Miller suggested that the reduction offered the City an opportunity to lido things differently" as well as continue to maintain the community's showcase parks. Mr. Nicholson agreed, pointing out that part of the component included more extensive use of volunteers. He said the result could be improved parks. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Miller clarified that the savings was a target figure. The motion passed, 5:3. The council discussed Component 23A/C, Business Licensing (Reduce business e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 11 5:30 p.m. e monitoring; realizes $100,000). Mr. Mounts cautioned the council that adoption of Component 29B (to increase garbage hauler fees) would affect the cost savings realized by Component 23A/C. He was unsure of the precise figure. The council agreed that $50,000 was a realistic amount to consider. Mr. MacDonald moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to include Component 23A/C, at a cost savings of $50,000, in the draft strategy. The motion passed, 7:1. Mr. Boles reminded the council that it was nearing in cost savings the service mix represented by Strategy C, an approach not favored by the community. Mr. MacDonald said that the council would revisit the mix and adjust it. The council discussed Component 37A/C, Metro Partnership (Eliminate contract; realizes $85,000). Mr. Nicholson questioned whether the City had received any benefit from the contract with the Metro Partnership. He said that, instead, the partnership had interfered in the City's election processes. Mr. Nicholson termed the relationship confused, and said it was time to end it. Mr. Miller said the quality of life in the community was related to jobs and job creation. He said that the partnership, in cooperation with the Business Assistance Team and other agencies, had enjoyed a phenomenonal success in recruiting jobs into the community. He added he believed it was a task best done at the metropolitan level with private support, and pointed out that the e City's dollars leveraged considerable private funds. Mr. Miller said the community continued to need the service the partnership provides. Ms. Bascom noted that she had recently attended a meeting where lottery dollars for economic development were awarded to local wood products produc- ers. She said the partnership had received high marks from business for the roll it played in the community. Ms. Bascom said she continued to support the partnership. Noting that he had been the council representative at a recent evaluation of the partnership, Mr. Boles said it was difficult to prove the effectiveness of the Metro Partnership. He said that the functions of the partnership are important, but traditionally have been performed by the private sector. Mr. Boles suggested that the City work with the chambers of commerce of Spring- field and Eugene to establish such a private metropolitan approach. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to include Compo- nent 37A/C in the draft strategy. Ms. Ehrman said that eliminating the contract would not eliminate the contacts and questions the partnership deals with now; instead, those calls would go to the Permit and Information Center or City Manager's Office. She pointed out that the contract had been reduced from a high of $200,000 to its current 1 eve 1 . Additionally, the partnership's original creation was a result of a e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 12 5:30 p.m. e joint effort of the two chambers and three local jurisdictions. Mr. Green said that the Oregon Economic Development Department relies heavily upon the partnership in its networking efforts in the area. He said he would not support eliminating the partnership, but indicated support for merging it with the Business Assistance Team. Mr. Robinette said that the partnership represented the consolidated effort called for by the community. Mr. Nicholson agreed with Ms. Ehrman that the continuing need to provide some type of response to the contacts and questions she referred to, but he urged the council to eliminate the contract because the council had no control over how the partnership spent the contribution it received from the City. He said that when the partnership was called upon to defend itself, it could not produce a single business that asserted the partnership's efforts and activi- ties were critical to the business locating or staying in Eugene. He suggest- ed the money was better spent on a similar internal function. Mr. Boles agreed with Mr. Nicholson's remarks, and said the motion deserved support because it provided the council with an incentive to do things differently and the partnership did not reflect the values of the entire community although it is supported with public money. The motion failed, 6:2. e Ms. Ehrman pointed out that the straw vote to include Component 23A (eliminate business counseling) meant that City staff would have to refer inquiries to the Metro Partnership. The council discussed Component 32C, Community Information/Parking Permits (Reduce Service by 50 Percent; realizes $100,000). Mr. Robinette moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to drop the compo- nent from further consideration at this time. The motion passed, 7:1. The council discussed Component 42B, Hult Center (Increase rental fees; realizes $35,000). Mr. MacDonald pointed out that the Hult Center recovers a large share of its total costs at the present time. He said the City had been able to support community activities that might not otherwise be viable, and said increasing rental fees could threaten those activities. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to drop Component 42B from further consideration at this time. Responding to a question from Mr. Rutan, Bob Schultz of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services said that the resident companies had e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 13 5:30 p.m. ---- ------- e indicated it could support the higher rental fees but made their operations more difficult due to the effect on ticket prices. The motion passed, 7:1. The council agreed to take up the subject of Facilities Maintenance at the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, August 12. The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m. R~:~ --~ Mich al Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) cc53011.082 e e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 14 5:30 p.m.