Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner shared the timing concerns expressed by Ms. Nathanson. He noted the next agenda <br />item related to the recommendation of the Mayor's Library Improvement Committee on a new <br />library levy to replace the existing levy, which took the committee six months' time. He <br />questioned whether a new committee would be prepared to place something on the November <br />ballot, as it would have less than five months to form and complete its work. He said he <br />supported the formation of a committee, but not the direction regarding the timing of its task. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor had mixed feelings about the motion given that he did not think the City had the same <br />persuasive argument to make about the need for new funding for parks and open space as it had <br />previously. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ supported the motion. He did question the suggested timing, and said that once the <br />committee was constituted it might have a better feel for the timing of a possible measure. He <br />recommended that the committee include spots for Ms. Nathanson and former City Councilor <br />Barbara Keller. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor supported the motion as she wanted more money for parks acquisition. She noted the <br />recreation center in her part of the community no longer served that function. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the motion. However, she questioned placing a measure on the <br />November 2002 ballot given the other emerging issues the council must address and the fact <br />money still existed from the last measure. She looked to the proposed committee to develop a list <br />of gaps and a targeted recommendation the council could forward to the voters at an opportune <br />time. She suggested that the committee be charged first to determine what properties could be <br />acquired with the funds remaining from the existing bond. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for another round of council comments on the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the motion was not presupposing that the committee would recommend a ballot <br />measure or the timing of a measure. In response to Mr. Rayor's comments, Mr. Kelly said that <br />"success begets success" and he thought there was momentum for such a measure that should <br />be taken advantage of. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that the fact the neighborhood park element of the parks and <br />open space bond measure was not fully implemented could work against the success of a future <br />bond measure. She was also concerned about the charge to the committee and its nature. A <br />committee that consisted of advocates for a parks and open space bond measure would do a <br />good job in advocating for such a measure, but she questioned whether the council wanted the <br />committee's advice on timing, suggesting that the council should use its political judgment to <br />make that decision. She did not want to raise expectations on the part of the committee that <br />would do the work about the nature of its recommendations. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked how the motion would actually work given the master planning effort that <br />was occurring. Mr. Johnson said it was important for the staff and committee to know the <br />committee's charge. If the council did not want to preclude a November 2002 election, it should <br />be clear about that. He anticipated the committee's work would take approximately a year, and <br />suggested the council was acting a bit prematurely in deciding now. He thought it would be <br />helpful if the committee had the opportunity to review the early work accomplished in the master <br />planning effort. Mr. Johnson suggested the council pass the motion with the understanding the <br />effort would not commence in six months. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2002 Page 8 <br /> State of the City <br /> <br /> <br />