04/15/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e Mr. Chenkin referred to the memo dated April 9, 1981, which the Planning Depart- ment had sent to the City Manager. The memo explained what the School District Task Force saw as its charge. The criteria that they developed are enumerated. The memo provided a list of schools considered for closure. The staff recom- mendation is that the City not attempt to step up its involvement in the process at this time, but concentrate on directing its comments to the administrative staff and board, because of 1) the short length of time between the completion of the public hearings and the task force recommendations; 2) the orientation of the public hearings to neighborhoods and individuals, not public agencies; 3) the constraints the task force had had in developing the models; and 4) the fact that the 4-J staff who will get the model recommended by the task force and the 4-J board are not constrained by any particular criteria. The City could communicate with the 4-J staff and then, with the board, in its final delibera- tion. At that time, there will be more time for this deliberation and wider criteria considerations. Mr. Chenkin explained one board member and the super- intendent of schools had expressed a desire to work more closely with the City Council, the Planning Commission, and staff. Mr. Chenkin noted that he will be attending the public hearings. He asked for direction from council. His recommendation was to go directly to the staff and school board and not to testify at the public hearings. He further suggested the City pursue working more closely with both the school board and staff. Ms. Schue asked how far the process had gone and how much council could affect it. Mr. Chenkin explained the task force does not have the authority to decide which schools will be closed. The board and administration are waiting for the task force's recommendation before proceeding. Nothing he saw would indicate otherwise, except for Lincoln School. The board is not constrained by the task force criteria. They could decide that neighborhood impact either is or is not more important than the task force's assessment would seem to indicate. Ms. Wooten was supportive of meeting with the Planning Commission and the school board, and providing testimony to the board at the time of their deliberation on the recommendations of the task force. Mr. Chenkin pointed out that the City might have input at the administrative level before deliberations with the board. He suggested the three bodies involved get together to discuss the process. Mr. Haws left the meeting. Mr. Gleason said if it was the consensus of the council, he would make the arrangements. Mr. Lindberg asked to hear from Darcy Marentette, a representative of the Citizen Involvement Committee, regarding adequate opportunity for citizen input. Ms. Marentette, chairperson of the Citizen Involvement Committee, made a personal statement that the bulk of the time allotted in the task force public hearing would not be open to anyone who wished to speak. It appeared unless they had previously registered, that that time would be limited to 30 minutes with the possibility that the time could be extended or that people could go to a subse- quent meeting. CIC wanted to bring this to the council's attention. Ms. Marentette was sure that the Citizen Involvement Committee would be pleased to know that overtures were being made to the council and the City from School ~ District 4-J. They were not requesting action but wanted to alert the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1981 Page 9