CC Minutes - 06/10/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

schools. She felt the community cared about education, and she did not want to spend money without asking the people. She did not see why the City would not let the voters decide. Ms. Taylor believed the measure fit with the council's goals, but believed it ironic the council had cut many services related to the goal. Ms. Bettman favored using whatever resources the City could to address the funding cuts the schools faced, but did not think the City could afford a "feel good" measure. She was concerned that the measure would not address core student needs. She objected to funding music clubs and cutting music teachers, for example, and asked staff to come back with a recommendation that focused on core services or what will directly impact core services, such as school counselors and school nurses. She wanted to see what other jurisdictions were doing to offset school cuts. Ms. Bettman said if the council was going to ask taxpayers to foot the bill, the proposal needed to benefit City residents. She had a problem with spending City taxpayer money to benefit nonresidents. Ms. Nathanson noted the links between many existing City and school programs, the existing partnerships, and the interrelationship between services and functions. She cited efforts to reduce criminal activity as an example. She said that, seemingly, the council was being asked to consider a partnership approach. She thought the council had an incentive to help. Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Jones to consider how working relationships could be strengthened without making participating partners unhappy, and finding a way to engage the districts in discussion about some of the neighborhood impacts from schools that were of concern to the council. Mr. Pap~ was very concerned about area schools. He hoped Governor John Kitzhaber and the legislature were sufficiently concerned to put aside their differences and act in the benefit of the schools. He said that he would support placing a measure before the voters and hoped the measure took a broad approach, as had been discussed by Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman. He disliked funding permanent services with serial levies, and said it was a grave concern in this case. Ms. Jones responded that staff was considering the measure a stop-gap approach, with the expectation that the State would develop a permanent funding solution. Mr. Pap~ asked what happened if the State failed to act. Ms. Jones said that Eugene needed a Eugene solution in that case. Mr. Pap~ agreed that a regional solution would be preferable. He shared the concern expressed by others about subsidizing nonresidents. Ms. Jones said that staff had not yet decided how to address the nonresident population, although it acknowledged that issue was out there. Mr. Pap~ asked if any money left over from last parks and open space bond could be used to assist the schools. Ms. Jones said that she did not think that was legally permissible. Mr. Rayor determined from Ms. Jones that State law precluded the City from funding school operations. Mr. Rayor opposed the approach being contemplated, saying schools and municipalities had always been separated, and taking on the burden of school funding would just let the State legislature avoid solving the problem. The proposal did not address the driver for MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 4 Work Session