CC Minutes - 07/24/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

not think that the City should continue to try to push their participation. He reiterated that taxes paid by Eugene residents should benefit those residents. He asked Mr. Klein if the levy could be structured so that no dollars went to out-of-city residents. Mr. Klein said the City could stipulate limitations on the funds through the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the districts. His questions regarded the practicality of such an approach. He wanted to determine if those stipulations could be complied with, and what remedies would exist if they were not. Mr. Pap~ requested more dialogue with the districts about the topic before the council took final action on July 31. Mr. Kelly said his position regarding Option 3 was motivated by policy and the commitment the City made to the voters. He was very supportive of the current programs. Mr. Kelly also thought the more simple the measure, the more likely it was to pass. He liked the uses for the dollars listed by the districts, terming them key parts of the growing up and educational experiences. He also agreed with Ms. Bettman regarding education as an economic development strategy. Mr. Kelly asked what the levy would provide to the districts' charter schools. Mr. Russell said that the money would be allocated to the charter schools on the same basis as State money. About $26,000 was involved. The board had not discussed that topic at this point. Mr. Kelly wanted to ensure the charter schools were included and suggested the issue be addressed in a stand-alone motion related to the contents of the IGA. Ms. Taylor expressed a desire the two local school districts would merge, that education funding could be addressed at the County level, and that the council had adopted an alternative form of taxation to create a sustainable funding source for local government. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that a simple measure was best. She indicated support for Option 3 for the reasons previously cited. Ms. Bettman reiterated her support for Option 3. She thought support for the measure would be strictly support for higher quality education and restoring some of the budget cuts that the districts have absorbed. Ms. Bettman was concerned that voters would perceive Option 1 as a City attempt to increase its General Fund budget, and it would be more likely to fail. She did not think the larger amount realized by Option 1 was justified. Ms. Bettman said that people testifying at the July 22 Public Forum seemed to perceive the levy, if passed, would produce smaller class sizes, more access to classes on art, music, and physical education, and she asked if that would be the result. Mr. Russell responded the levy was intended to restore some budget cuts and would allow the districts to rehire classroom teachers. He offered as a caveat the uncertainty of the governor's action or the September 2002 election. The dollars could end up maintaining, to the extent possible, existing services. Mr. Hunsaker added differences existed between the two districts in terms of staffing levels. For example, the Bethel School District had a full-time music teacher in every elementary school, so the district was unlikely to add music teachers. He anticipated the two districts would make different funding decisions. Mr. Meisner said that of the options, he could support only Option 3 at this time. He continued to be frustrated that Eugene was the first place people looked to for money. He expressed surprise that no group of parents had organized to seek repeal of the tax limitation measures that had created the shortfall in education funding. Instead of demanding a State solution to the issue of MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 5 Work Session