CC Minutes - 05/27/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

because of the mandated reduction to the library's collections and acquisitions budget. He supported having community organization groups providing scholarships to cover the costs of the options, but was not persuaded that the cost estimates were comprehensive and that the money would be adequate. Mr. Meisner asked what would happen if the council found a group ready to fund Option 2 this year; what happened the following year? Would it be the City's responsibility to provide scholarships to all out-of-district children? Mr. Meisner said that the provision of library services to County residents was a County responsibility, not a City responsibility. Ms. Bennett referred the council to the first page of the agenda item summary, which discussed what was not covered by the estimates. She said that all the options were for three years, and all represented interim solutions pending a permanent solution. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the creative options developed by staff. While he believed that library services for children were very important, he could not support any of the options before the council because of the potential that existing library services could be degraded, because of the potential stigma of a scholarship program accompanied with an application, and because of the potential that a situation would be created where a child turned a certain age and then lost his or her library card benefit. Ms. Bettman wanted to hear more about the potential of private support for library cards for out-of- city residents. She expressed appreciation for the options before the council but found them all to be expensive. She questioned the range of services and those served in each option. Ms. Bennett reviewed the four options and noted the basis on which the cost estimates were made for each. Given the reductions made through the recently completed budget process, Ms. Bettman said she could not see adding a new service at this time, even one she supported as much as the one in question. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Ms. Bettman. He did not see going forward with any of the options at this point in time. He did not want to diminish the library services provided to City residents. Mr. Pap~ recalled that when he was a child, schools had libraries, and he assumed that was still the case. Ms. Bennett said that school libraries in Oregon were in poor condition, and such libraries were one of the places budget reductions were occurring. She said that 1.5 FTE in library staff was available to service 28 elementary schools in School District 4J. Mr. Pap~ suggested that teachers might be able to assist. Ms. Taylor asked if the school districts could pay for library cards for school-age children. Ms. Bennett did not know, saying staff had not been directed to approach the districts. Ms. Taylor believed that a library card was a basic right, and indicated a preference for Option 4 because more people were served. Mayor Torrey expressed disappointment in the comments that had been made. He said he would be unable to raise enough money privately to supply cards to all needy youths. He believed that through its inaction, the council was doing a disservice to young, Iow-income children who need access to the library. Mayor Torrey noted that he had attended all but one Budget Committee meetings and heard frequent complaints about cutting services to children. He asked where the councilors had been last year when it was asked to leave the full, after-school program in place but the council decided against it and the program was reduced. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 11 Work Session