Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Piercy voiced her support for the motion; however, she voiced her concern regarding the <br />restoration of the statutorily mandated public safety services as it was too limiting. She stated <br />that prevention and intervention services were critical and should be included. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, with agreement by Ms. Taylor, moved to include a friendly <br /> amendment to the motion to include ~and prevention and intervention public <br /> safety services." <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon pointed out that the original motion before this body was not the end of the <br />discussion as the City has adequate leverage to include clarifications into an intergovernmental <br />agreement. She opined that discussions would be fruitful and questioned what other option were <br />available. Ms. Solomon encouraged the council to allow the County to prevail. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor reiterated that the proposal before the council would not create a special district and to <br />shut down the process at this point would just continue the fruitless conversations that have <br />ensued for years. He voiced serious doubt that the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, and <br />Lane County would be able to come together to resolve the critical issues via another path. He <br />urged the council to allow the amendment to pass, followed by a conversation regarding special <br />districts with all the parties involved. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly countered that the amendment does allow a special district. He also shared that the <br />benefits of a special district have not been revealed, nor ~why" it would succeed where other <br />options have not. Mr. Kelly noted that such a district would cost taxpayers $250.00 per year <br />based on a median-priced house and the County's own polling suggest the community would not <br />accept such an increase in taxes. <br /> <br />In conclusion, Mr. Kelly stated he would support Ms. Bettman's motion as it moves to <br />comprehensively explore other options with the area partners that would be successful. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz stated she supported Ms. Bettman's motion as it was critical to have a dialogue with all <br />partners "at the table" to reach a viable agreement. She stressed that she supported public safety <br />programs and would campaign and support a sound program. In conclusion, Ms. Ortiz noted she <br />was included in the past conversations on this matter. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman pointed to the perennial lack of support Lane County demonstrated with regard to <br />bond measures and levies, in contrast to the City of Eugene, which can pass bond measures and <br />levies as its residents rallied around the issues. She opined that divided support would not result <br />in a successful process. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman spoke to the State statute and said it gave the council veto power but not the ability <br />to design a solution that works for the taxpayers of Eugene. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman clarified that the revenues generated from Eugene taxpayers was $9,240,000 at the <br />$1 rate and $18 million at the $2 rate; whereas, the County was proposing to double its current <br />public safety budget. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ voiced his disagreement with Ms. Bettman's assessment that if the amendment was <br />passed the discussion was over. He also reiterated that the County can go forward with a special <br />district without the City of Eugene's participation. Mr. Pap~ then suggested that the language in <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />