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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner suggested that there were two motivations behind those advocating for such a district. One was to provide services outside the city, and the second was to sustain existing library services. Those motivations created challenges in developing a district tax base that was equitable to the Eugene residents who built the library and supported its operations, and in fulfilling the promises made by district proponents regarding library services in unincorporated areas. Mr. Meisner said that promises of additional branches would be difficult to meet. He pointed out that the district would be reliant on the same property tax system as the City and would face the same problems the City had in attempting to provide additional services, and ultimately would have to turn to the voters for a local option levy to fund them. Mr. Meisner said that there were some technical problems with any proposed special district boundaries since there were portions of Eugene in neither the 4J nor Bethel school districts. People living in North Eugene were unhappy paying school taxes to support those districts when they were in the Junction City School District. That issue needed to be addressed. Mr. Kelly did not disagree with Mr. Meisner's comments about the complexity of the issue. He said that recognizing the complexity and challenges of such districts, he thought it worth moving forward with further discussion. He said that staff had done a good job of listing the questions that the council needed to consider before acting. Mr. Kelly thought the questions were good and the research envisioned challenging. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner about funding permanent services like the library with a four- year levy that must be renewed by the voters. He also believed it was unfortunate that there were so many unserved residents in the metropolitan area. For those reasons, he supported further work on a special library district, and wished those involved in moving the proposal forward well. Ms. Bettman said she wished that the information before the council had come with a price tag. There was considerable staff work involved, and she thought that going forward with further research without a price tag was not a thoughtful way for the City to proceed. Ms. Bettman referred to the needed Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan amendments and asked if they would be applied specifically to the library district concept. Mr. Carlson said that the amendments could be specific to libraries or they could address some of the fundamental principles in the plan related to the way services were provided. He believed it was an open question at this point. Ms. Bettman thought it a crucial question if it meant the City was opening the way for more special districts. If that was the case, she questioned why the library would be first service to be considered. She believed that under the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, special districts were only to be used as a transitional method of providing services, and relying on special districts for the provision of services represented a major policy change. Ms. Bettman asked the costs of administering special districts, suggesting that the formation of such districts would create a bureaucracy equal to the size of the City's bureaucracy. She asked if money would actually be saved. Ms. Bettman asked how much Eugene residents would pay for a new library district and if their levels of service would change. She wanted to quantify the benefit of such a district to Eugene residents. Ms. Taylor believed there were some risks in going forward but also risks in depending on the local option levy to underwrite library services. She thought it important for everyone to have library services, particularly school-aged children. Ms. Taylor noted that she had lived in a place with many special districts, and they created confusion for residents, particularly when it came to MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 7 Work Session