Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly concluded by saying that the community was reaping the consequences of tax limitation <br />measures that the community did not support, the inaction of the Lane Board of County <br />Commissioners, and the inability of the State legislature to act. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding the council's ability to separate that element <br />of the levy proposal intended to supplant the current youth levy from the other elements of the <br />proposal, City Attorney Glenn Klein referred the council to a letter from the legal counsel of the <br />school district discussing the tax limitation limits and the impact on the levy on those limits. If the <br />City offered the voters a City levy for educational purposes, the revenue from the levy would be <br />counted under the $5 school district cap rather than the $10 general government cap, which <br />would defeat the purpose of the proposal. Ms. Taylor believed that the funding intended for the <br />schools was not for education but for extracurricular activities, and asked about the effect of that. <br />Mr. Klein said no court decisions related to the issue exist, and the legal counsel of other cities <br />that had examined taking similar approach agreed that the question was how much risk a <br />municipality wished to take. The legal counsels had agreed that with no component for local <br />government, that risk significantly increased. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor was also concerned that the City had not developed a long-range funding source for <br />youth activities. She tentatively expressed support for Option 3. She acknowledged the equity <br />issue, but said that the council was merely giving the citizens a chance to decide, and they could <br />reject the measure if they choose to. She wanted to give the community a chance to do <br />something for the schools. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought it would be useful if the schools and City could do more space-sharing for <br />community meetings and recreational activities. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thanked Ms. Jones for her work and for ensuring the allocation of funding included <br />funding for counselors, librarians, and school nurses, an issue of importance to her. She was <br />prepared to support the measure and agreed with Ms. Taylor that the council was just letting the <br />voters decide whether a good school system outweighed the inequities of the measure. She <br />believed that helping the school system and fostering a high-quality education system was a good <br />economic development strategy. Ms. Bettman said a good educational system outweighed other <br />incentives the City could provide. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman also supported Option 3. Her highest value was to help the districts restore the <br />services they provided directly to students. She expressed concern that if the City asked for too <br />much money for itself, the voters would not find the proposal sufficiently fiscally conservative. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was not prepared to stand in the way of referring a measure to the voters, but he was <br />not happy with what he considered a band-aid approach to funding education. He said he was <br />also concerned about the equity issue. He was not sure a discount to Eugene parents for <br />programs they would be paying for above and beyond the property taxes they paid was a solution. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that the State legislature was happy to defer a solution to the cities because then <br />legislators did not need to address the issue of sustainable school funding. That was not <br />acceptable. He feared what was intended to be a temporary band-aid could become permanent. <br />Mr. Meisner acknowledged the value of the programs involved but questioned whether the <br />solution proposed was the correct solution. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />