Laserfiche WebLink
the levy and currently funded through the General Fund and recommendation on how to prioritize those <br />services. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said he would support the recommendation to incorporate youth services in the General Fund with <br />extreme reluctance and regretted the need to make that decision. He said the community had stepped up to <br />support the children of Eugene in the past and that demonstrated a shared concern and common focus on <br />youth. He did not want to see all of the achievements in youth services slowly starve as they competed <br />within the General Fund. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé said he thought it was already the intent of the citizen members of the Budget Committee to review <br />youth services, including the levy services. City Manager Taylor replied that the citizen members had <br />identified at the end of the budget process several areas they wanted to revisit prior to presentation of the <br />FY08 budget and youth services could be one of those areas, consistent with the discussions of funding core <br />services within the General Fund revenue streams. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked about a qualifying amendment when the levy was placed on the ballot that required rollback <br />of the levy to the amount the school districts needed if support from other funding sources increased. <br />Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson replied that a provision in the original council resolution required an <br />annual analysis of the State’s contribution to the school districts and comparison to the levy. He said up to <br />FY07 the amount from the State had not equaled or exceeded the benchmark. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked how services to nonresidents, such as some 4J participants, were handled. Ms. Grube said <br />the levy provided that nonresidents were subsidized to a lesser degree in school programs and City programs <br />charged a 20 percent surcharge for all nonresidents. She said it was difficult to determine whether the <br />surcharged covered all costs of serving nonresidents but it was based on models from other jurisdictions. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé commented that services to youth, whether inside or outside of the City, should be important to <br />everyone and he hoped the County would agree to participate in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked when a final court ruling on the tax question was expected. City Attorney Glenn Klein <br />replied that the City had requested expedited written and oral arguments in the hope that a ruling would <br />occur by the end of August, but the court did not indicate when a decision would be made. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said he, like Mr. Pryor, would very reluctantly support the recommendation. He felt the <br />physical, mental and social welfare of youth in the community was extremely important for the future and <br />was concerned that moving the youth services into the General Fund would result in cuts in future budget <br />cycles. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy remarked that recreation programs were a mix of recreation and physical activities and served a <br />social and human service need. She was concerned about moving them into the social services category and <br />not thinking of the services in a more comprehensive way. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed there was a danger in regarding all of the activities as fungible and agreed with the <br />suggestion to have the citizen members of the Budget Committee take a broader look at youth services. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion to read as fol- <br />lows: “I move to direct the City Manager to seek a recommendation from the citi- <br />zen members of the Budget Committee for some or all of the City’s core youth ser- <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />