Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey supported sending a measure to the voters. He had been concerned about having <br />any City services attached to the measure for fear of perception, but was persuaded that the City <br />did not have a choice under the law. He supported Option 1. With regard to the question of <br />equity, Mayor Torrey concurred it was a problem, but did not want to make it a "whipping boy" for <br />the issue. <br /> <br />Acknowledging the concerns about how it was paid for, Mayor Torrey said he believed the general <br />agreement was that the after-school program created positive value. He thought the council was <br />going to have to step up to the issue and determine how to pay for the service. However, an <br />urgent need faced the community today, and he hoped the council did not reject the proposal for <br />that reason. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey solicited another round of comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said the primary difference between options 1 and 3 was about 14 cents per <br />$1,000, and that amount paid for after-school youth activities. She thought that such activities <br />contributed to child and family development, to neighborhood cohesiveness, and to public safety. <br />She asked Ms. Jones how the district felt about the subject. Ms. Jones said that the districts <br />found such activities very important, and noted that both districts provided access to their facilities <br />for after-school activities. Many parents expect the schools to provide after-school programming. <br />She deferred to Mr. Russell and Bethel School District Superintendent Kent Hunsaker, who <br />concurred. Mr. Hunsaker said such programs were very popular with Bethel residents and the <br />district would like to see them continue and supported the City-related element. Mr. Carlson said <br />that the programs were important for the same reasons the council had placed the youth levy on <br />the measure before. Ms. Nathanson preferred Option 1 because of the value of those programs. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked Mr. Russell about the amount of district's unfunded PERS liability. District staff <br />indicated that as of the end of 2000, that amount was approximately $61 million. Mr. Rayor asked <br />what the City paid annually to cover its PERS payments. Mr. Carlson estimated about 14 percent <br />of personnel costs. Mr. Rayor asked why the 4J School District had not joined the City in its suit <br />against the PERS Board. Mr. Russell said that he discussed that issue with Mr. Rayor previously <br />and did not think this meeting was an appropriate venue for further discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that he urged the governor to veto the budget because it was an inadequate <br />solution and would create a bigger problem. He did not think the council should rob from the <br />future to enhance a bleeding program. Mr. Rayor asserted that things must get worse before they <br />get better. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that the City's assertions that the youth levy would be for two years was a lie. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that the City had five officers in the schools and the 4J district paid for one of them. <br />He said that the City was already doing something for the schools. He asked how charter <br />schools inside the city limits would be addressed, and how the equity issue would be solved. Mr. <br />Rayor said that without the City element, "this whole thing is illegal." <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said that he would support Option 3 because of the City's promise to voters regarding <br />the youth levy. He said that Springfield and Lane County did not want to step forward and he did <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />