CC Minutes - 07/17/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Fart wanted to do more in the way of "training the trainers" to maximize the effectiveness of those who would be involved in delivering the programs. He said that the program was a well- rounded one that "touched all the bases." Mr. Kelly complimented the task force on its work. He particularly commended the formation of the Transportation Committee. Mr. Kelly also did not favor a serial levy, particularly a two-year levy, because its renewal could be rejected by the public. He preferred to move toward a unified permanent funding base, such as an admittance tax or special service district tax, to avoid the need to go back to the voters. Mr. Johnson clarified that the intent of the suggested motion directing staff to seek long-term funding was to direct staff to examine, at minimum, an admittance tax and special district formation as ways to underwrite the program funding in the future. He confirmed that a special district could be funded through a user fee. Mr. Meisner commended the work of the task force, in particularly its gap analysis, and said he expected to support its recommendations. However, he continued to be frustrated by the County's inability to provide funding for services to a population that commissioners claimed was a priority. Many of the youth to be served through the program were County, not City residents. Mr. Meisner said the County had no incentive to provide funding if the City continued to provide it. He was not persuaded that the County would be bothered to support the program, and hoped the school districts would. Mr. Meisner asked about the future of the program if no other government was willing to lend assistance, pointing out that the City's financial forecast suggested that programs would have to be eliminated rather than added. He said that the City must persuade its intergovernmental partners to participate in a more fundamental way. Mr. Meisner did not find provision of the fairgrounds facility to be a significant contribution. Ms. Nathanson questioned the connection between Mr. Meisner's remarks and expected discussions with Lane County regarding some collaboration and cooperation issues. Ms. Nathanson said that the vast social change that occurred over the last few decades was not matched by commensurate changes in how school districts or municipal governments operated; those agencies continued to do what they had done, and in Eugene funding for school districts had fallen. At a time of increased need, the ability to serve that need decreased. Ms. Nathanson supported the proposal but did not consider it a watershed event in a way that told her that "we've turned the corner," or that governments had changed to reflect the change that occurred in the country. She said that "this isn't it, yet," but it was a step in the right direction. Ms. Nathanson said she was particularly interested in the provision of affordable school-based child care, transportation alternatives, late night and weekend programs, sliding scale fees, school-based arts and activities, cultural activities, athletics, and other outdoor activities, including work, for individuals as well as teams. Mr. Johnson noted that school-based arts, music, and other cultural activities were a large element of the program. Mr. Pap8 said that the approach recommended was wonderful. He expressed concern, however, about the proposed serial levy because he feared that it would detract from the City's measure for a new police headquarters. He said that if asked his priority, he would have to support the police measure. Mr. Pap8 did not support the proposal for a serial levy at this time. Mr. Pap8 also expressed concern that Springfield and the County were not participating in the costs of the program as he did not think that youth from those jurisdictions would be turned away MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 17, 2000 Page 7 Work Session