Laserfiche WebLink
suggested a less restrictive threshold for dissolving the district given the elimination of the <br />sunset. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly requested feedback from the districts and staff on the two-thirds majority requirement as <br />opposed to a simple majority requirement before the upcoming public hearing. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jerome Lidz said he discussed the subject with staff, and recommended to the <br />council that two-thirds of the property owners be required to request the City Manager to <br />schedule a public hearing before the City Council on the district's dissolution. He did not think <br />the property owners should be given that authority. Mr. Kelly continued to want an answer to his <br />question. <br /> <br />Ms. Prichard discussed the Downtown Service District. She said she witnessed the value of the <br />Downtown Service District and the guides in particular on a daily basis. She emphasized the <br />value of the district to several planning efforts underway in a post-Ballot Measure 47/50 <br />atmosphere. She briefly noted services delivered by the district, adding that funding was largely <br />devoted to public safety. <br /> <br />Ms. Prichard asked the council to renew the district prior to January 1, 2001, to avoid the impacts <br />of the initiative, if it passed. She said that DEl was also asking that for the payments due on July <br />10 and October 10, 2000, the owners pay DEl directly. Ms. Prichard acknowledged the risk to <br />that strategy and said she hoped that property owners would recognize the value of the services <br />and continue to pay without the mandatory system now in effect. If the initiative passed, DEl <br />would have to continue direct collection or put the district out for a public vote. <br /> <br />Ms. Prichard said the district would like to increase fees for both boundary areas effective <br />January 1, realizing approximately $54,000 in increased revenues to hire and train quality <br />employees and examine new opportunities to improve the appearance of downtown and attract <br />more citizens downtown. In addition, the board hoped to build a small operating reserve. Ms. <br />Prichard reiterated Mr. Gibbs' request for elimination of the sunset. She also asked that <br />properties owned by government be subject to the same assessment as private property owners, <br />citing a precedent for the practice in Portland. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner wanted to continue both districts because of their good work. He noted nonprofit <br />organizations were exempted from the property tax but benefitted from the district. He <br />questioned if there was another way to get those organizations to contribute. He thought the <br />same was true of residential uses downtown. He asked the districts' boards to consider that <br />subject. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked the downtown district's representatives if they envisioned changes in the <br />district boundaries. Ms. Prichard said that the boundaries were not set in stone and the board <br />was open to changes. Mr. Meisner asked the board to consider the concept of a greater <br />downtown, pointing out it widened the base of who paid and benefitted more properties. <br />Mr. Meisner questioned the higher administrative percentage costs for the University Service <br />District. Lew Bowers, Planning and Development Department, responded that, because the <br />district was smaller, it cost relatively more to administer. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Johnson indicated he would make Mr. Brink's Budget <br />Committee presentation available to him. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />