Laserfiche WebLink
of the meeting, which was that there were limited opportunities to ask voters to approve money measures <br />because of the double-majority requirement. He commented that the requirement slowed things down and <br />many measures had failed because of it. He stated there was a limit to the number of times the City could <br />go to the ballot and that it should be strategic about when it took a measure to the ballot. He noted that <br />school district bond issues bring voters out and recommended the City piggyback on that. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson said the other time available to bring a measure to the voters was in November of even- <br />numbered years. He reported that another lesson learned at the meeting was that the municipality should try <br />not to compete with itself; it was better to pick key measures and focus on them. He cited the example of <br />the County, which had brought six measures before the public in November 2002. He averred this made it <br />difficult to discern where the priority lay. <br /> <br />Continuing, Mr. Carlson conveyed the other message given by the presenters, Jim Francesconi of Portland <br />and Larry Lehman of Pendleton, which highlighted the necessity of commitment to winning. There needs to <br />be an active Political Action Committee (PAC) in order to raise money, poll voters, and place arguments in <br />favor in the voters pamphlet. He stressed that these were things staff was unable to do, but that councilors <br />could serve on such a PAC. He added that the City was legally able to send out objective, neutral <br />information on an issue and could circulate citizen surveys. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson asserted that ballot measures typically passed because of emotion rather than economics. He <br />related that the presenters had said that it takes six months to a year to inform the public and get a ballot <br />measure in place. He called attention to the Tentative Election Schedule in Attachment C and requested <br />council direction <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asserted it was not the City's sole responsibility to have its tax payers provide the level of <br />service for non-city residents that the larger district options provided. He encouraged staff to actively work <br />on options that brought the school districts together. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner acknowledged that bond measures only succeeded with the backing of active and effective <br />public support groups. He called this his largest concern regarding the police services building. He felt the <br />Police Commission was being treated as a PAC, which it could not be. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner strongly urged staff to help work at the legislative level to modify the requirement for a double <br />majority for a bond measure to succeed. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked about the emotional appeal of a measure and where people who were emotional regarding <br />the police services building were. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson, in response to a question from Ms. Taylor, said the urban renewal district would not include <br />the area on which the police services building was slated to be built. He added that, while the urban renewal <br />district would be a way to fund a portion of the construction of such a building in the riverfront district, <br />there was not enough increment in the riverfront district to support a bond measure of the magnitude needed <br />to construct a new police services building. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 2003 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />