CC Minutes - 05/23/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

structure of local government. Mr. Kelly said that minimizing the role of the City and the County to provide these general purpose services was not prudent. Mr. Kelly went on to say that if there was a mechanism that would provide prevention and reactive services that the County wanted to put forth through a serial levy, income tax measure, or sales tax measure, he was willing to campaign for these requests. However, he stressed that he could not approve a fundamental change mechanism. He questioned if the City Council was prepared to say to voters that such an action was the answer to the public safety challenges. In conclusion, Mr. Kelly pondered how it would appear to voters if the elected officials were unclear what services would be offered to the public as they were being taxed permanently each year. Ms. Bettman stated she favored funding public safety; however, she was not in favor of the recommendation before the council. She said that the document under review was a discrete amendment change, would not be put forth to the voters, and would open the door to a fundamental change as to how services were provided between the County and the municipalities. Ms. Bettman opined that if the Metro Plan amendment moved forward, the County would have the next 20 years to pursue bills that preempted the City's local authority to determine how local services would be provided. She cautioned that once such a district was created, the City would not be privy to how funding was spent. She pointed out that Lane County and the City of Springfield had an opportunity to make a good faith effort to include the language regarding compression in the amendment as they cast their votes and did not do so. Ms. Bettman stressed that the biggest impact of this amendment would be on the City of Eugene as it was the biggest revenue generator for the County, with a starting cost of $9 million. Mr. Pryor stated that the proposal was a step to keep the conversation going. He reasoned that the resolution would not create a special district; rather, it would allow the local governments to ~keep the tool in the tool box." Mr. Pryor questioned the likelihood that the County would put forth a serial levy, sales tax, or other measures. He stressed he did not want to close down the options this early in the process. Mr. Pap~ stated that it may be timely for the council to look at a %hift" in program funding. He pointed to the constraints imposed by ballot measure 5, 47, and 50 and said he would prefer that the City broaden the manner in which services were financed. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Mr. Pryor's remarks that it would be prudent to ~keep the tool in the tool box" and additionally to include fire and EMS services in the amendment language. He noted that the State statute requires a consensual %uy-in" by Eugene to be included in any special district. Mr. Klein elaborated that before a city can be included in a public safety district, its city council must pass a resolution of approval. He added that the district could move forward without the City of Eugene but to include property within Eugene, the council would need to pass an affirmative resolution. Mr. Klein concluded that the City can work with the City of Springfield and Lane County to tweak the language in the amendment to clarify any ambiguities. Mr. Pap~ said he favored special districts in this area. City Manager Taylor explained that the language was created to be as specific and narrow as possible so that the rest of the understandings that were created in 1987 with regard to who was the appropriate service provider would remain the same as in the current Metro Plan; in other words, the amendment would MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 8 Work Session