Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Grube said the purpose of the work session was to solicit the council’s interest in pursuing alternative revenues to support Bethel and 4J school districts and out-of-school youth services provided by the City. She referred to agenda materials that described past council action on the issue. She noted that in June 2006, the council decided against another levy to fund youth activities because the school districts had identified alternate strategies for funding and concerns with the legal challenge relating to the Measure 5 property tax cap. She said the Supreme Court affirmed that the portion of the levy funding school-based services should be categorized as school tax for purposes of Ballot Measure 5. Ms. Grube indicated that two revenue options had been provided for the council’s consideration: a personal income tax and a business license fee. She said the agenda material included examples of how those had been implemented in other communities. Ms. Bettman thanked staff for the agenda materials and said she could support either option as an alternative funding source, but she wanted to see a clear nexus between the revenue and class size. She said the revenue needed to be spent in the classroom and dedicated to reducing class size. She said the value of a good education was evident to everyone and large class sizes were obstacles to learning. She gave the example of a math class with 47 students that would be increased to 53 students next year. She was willing to consider either option or a combination of them but wanted to see reduction of class size balanced with youth services. Mr. Clark related that he had small children in local public schools and the quality of their education was very important. He agreed that reducing class size was a significant concern. He thought recent action to reduce the library levy and bring library services into the General Fund meant trading one tax for another. He was not certain he could support looking for a new source of revenue in the form of creating a new tax and recent experience suggested that an income tax would not have public approval. Ms. Ortiz stated she was a passionate school supporter and former school board member and willing to consider ways to help the school districts, but was cautious as Bethel had twice defeated a school operating levy. She thought it was the council’s responsibility to do all it could to ensure a good education for children in the community. Ms. Piercy wondered how many trips to the well could be had. She felt there should be a discussion with school boards about the amount of revenue to be raised and how it would be allocated before making a decision. She was confident that everyone understood the importance of education and delaying action would not indicate lack of concern or commitment. Mr. Pryor said as a former school board member he was absolutely committed to children and the City should do whatever possible to assist the school districts. He thought it was appropriate to wait until the legislative session had ended and then have a joint meeting with school boards to identify critical needs. Mr. Zelenka said that education of children was a primary responsibility. He wanted to have a discussion with the school districts but was concerned with the timing. He said the subcommittee on transportation would be reporting back to the council soon with funding recommendations and there were also a new City Hall, downtown development, a Lane County income tax and legislative actions to be considered. He was interested in youth services funding but felt it should be addressed at a later date. Ms. Taylor asked if it would be legal for the City to fund youth services. Mr. Klein replied that the problem related to a property tax issue and a different mechanism would be used. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 6 Work Session