Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson moved to include language in the IGA regarding outcome <br /> based targets and the need for the City schools to work neighborhoods to <br /> mitigate problems related to the student outside of school. The motion died <br /> for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart was pleased to see Eugene taking action and was confident of a positive vote on the <br />measure. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he now intended to oppose the motion because of the inclusion of the <br />charter schools; he had been contacted by the charter schools regarding their interest in the <br />funding not for librarians, counselors, or music but rather for general funding purposes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend that the IGA include a <br /> provision that ensured the levy funds go to Eugene citizens only. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart had confidence in the decision-making ability of the school boards and staff and opposed <br />the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought that Mr. Pap~ was requesting an impossibility and suggested it would throw <br />a shadow over the entire measure. She opposed the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Jones reiterated that a discount for Eugene residents had been discussed with the districts <br />and would be incorporated into the IGA. She said that the issue needed to be resolved over the <br />long term because there was not time to resolve it now. She assured the council that staff was <br />working with the districts as well as internally with the department's own programs to address the <br />issue of equity. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said his intent was that the IGA contained the best language possible to make sure what <br />Ms. Jones was discussing happened, and he envisioned something more extensive than <br />discounts. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor suggested means testing of participating youth. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not support the motion. She acknowledged the equity issue and said it would be <br />good if the districts' boundaries were coterminous with the City's boundary, but she could not see <br />turning Iow-income children away from programs and activities. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey indicated opposition to the amendment because mechanisms were in place to <br />address the issues raised. He suggested that the council not get lost in the accounting issue. <br /> <br /> The motion on the amendment was 5:3; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. <br /> Rayor voting yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the motion to <br /> direct the City Manager to bring back language to the council prior to the final <br /> vote to ensure the funds from the measure benefit residents of the City of <br /> Eugene to the maximum possible extent. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart opposed the amendment because it took away control from the school districts. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />