Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman also opposed the amendment. She questioned how the City could discount services <br />to City residents for the sake of equity unless it countered that with an increase in the fees to <br />nonresidents, because otherwise it would be creating another deficit. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson supported the amendment, saying she did not believe the motion was as onerous <br />or specific as the previous motion, but rather expressed a principle related to equity that was not <br />reflected in the written materials before the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly opposed the amendment because he thought the equity issue needed to be addressed <br />at a broader level. <br /> <br /> The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap~, Mr. Rayor, <br /> and Mr. Meisner voting yes; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Fart <br /> voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in favor of the motion, and it passed a <br /> final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fart, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to extend time for the item by five <br /> minutes. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion to eliminate <br /> the youth levy element of the funding measure. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein indicated that if the amendment to the motion passed, the levy would probably count <br />under $5 education cap, and nothing would be accomplished. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor questioned the legality of the measure and said that his motion was intended to spur <br />research to confirm that the City Attorney agreed with the districts' legal counsel as well as to <br />ensure that promises made to the voters about the levy were kept. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson noted that the voters were currently paying between 21 cents and 22 cents per <br />$1,000 to pay for the youth levy; under this measure, that amount was supplanted by another <br />measure requiring voters to pay 86 cents per $1,000. She believed it would be appropriate to ask <br />the voters if they were interested in supporting an increase over what they were currently paying. <br />It was a different set of activities, still in support of youth. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor preferred to be able to offer the voters separate measures if possible and would <br />support such a motion if legal counsel found it possible. Mr. Klein indicated that nothing was <br />going to change between now and August 12 in terms of case law as it regarded the funding <br />allocation. He concurred with the opinion of the school districts' legal counsel. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion failed, 7:1; Mr. Rayor voting yes <br /> <br /> The main motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Rayor and Mr. Meisner voting no. <br /> <br />B. WORK SESSION: Discussion of Recommended Amendments to the Eugene City Charter <br /> <br />Mary Walston, City Manager's Office, introduced the topic. She said that the council had <br />completed work on all the items forwarded to it by the Citizen Charter Review Committee (CCRC). <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />