Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Carlson that the City staff did not believe a parks and recreation <br />district could legally levy an admissions tax to underwrite its costs; such a tax would be within the <br />purview of a general purpose government. Mr. Meisner further clarified that a special district <br />could have one level of taxation for the service it delivered, not differing levels of taxation within a <br />single district. Mr. Carlson confirmed that was true for library districts. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Carlson said that the special district boundaries <br />could be the same as the city's boundaries. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked about the differences in the tax rates levied by the Willamalane and River Road <br />parks and recreation districts. Mr. Carlson attributed the difference to the fact that River Road had <br />a high tax rate for the high level of service, and a residential property base, so there were no <br />commercial or industrial properties contributing to the district. In addition, the River Road district <br />used general obligation bonds to purchase and build facilities, and those expenses do not come out <br />of the general tax rate. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Carlson clarified that if the territory of Eugene <br />were included within a special park and recreation district, the City would be able to maintain its <br />tax rate while park and recreation costs would be met by the district. The City would then have <br />more money in the General Fund for other services. He added that the council always had the <br />option of levying less; the permanent maximum rate stays constant. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the addition of a service to an existing county <br />service district, Mr. Carlson said that such districts were a "special breed" of districts in that they <br />were more flexible in terms of boundaries and services provided. One of the options staff <br />identified was to increase the services provided by an existing service district. There may be ways <br />of creating a new district that could offer a variety of services and be drawn in a different <br />geographic manner. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if Springfield was interested in creating service districts. Mr. Carlson said yes. <br />He noted that Springfield already had a park and recreation district. Springfield was interested in <br />forming a library district for the same reason as Eugene: it was the only way to increase revenue <br />from property taxes for urban services on a permanent basis. Mr. Meisner clarified that Springfield <br />was not proposing to form a library district in conjunction with Eugene, but to extend service east <br />and northeast from Springfield to increase the tax base. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the city could annex to a special district. Mr. Hill said that Metro Plan and <br />Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission policies discourage such annexations. <br />Theoretically it was possible, but he was unsure it was consistent with the Metro Plan, leading to <br />the staff recommendation that the plan be examined for possible amendments. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2001 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />