Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Taylor asked if it would be legal for the City to fund youth services. Mr. Klein replied that the problem <br />related to a property tax issue and a different mechanism would be used. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor expressed concern with large class sizes and agreed that the City should help where possible, but <br />should wait to see what the legislature would do with K-12 funding before acting. She said that meeting <br />with school boards was a good idea and there should be a meeting with teachers as well. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman remarked that State funding and other support the City could provide, such as turning over a <br />piece of valuable property or systems development charge (SDC) forgiveness went to the school general <br />budget but did not always result in reduced class sizes. She wanted to see how the legislature’s budget <br />would evolve in terms of class size because large classes were the biggest obstacle to learning. She said that <br />both of the proposed revenue sources had been excluded from the transportation subcommittee’s considera- <br />tion and were available for other needs. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to revisit <br />this issue after the legislature had adjourned, with direction to prepare a proposal <br />for either an income tax option or a business license fee to provide funding to re- <br />duce classroom size for the Eugene 4J and Bethel 52 school districts and including <br />City youth services. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to add the phrase “after a workshop be- <br />tween the City Council and 4J and Bethel school board members.” Ms. Bettman <br />and Ms. Ortiz accepted the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to add the phrase “and look at other <br />funding options to achieve this objective.” Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz accepted the <br />amendment. <br /> <br />The motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor introduced Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter and City Attorney Emily Jerome to discuss <br />more definitive direction regarding the City’s review and decision-making on the Delta Sand and Gravel <br />request for a Metro Plan amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter said that staff was requesting affirmation from the council that its decision was being imple- <br />mented appropriately. He reviewed the council’s previous actions, which determined by straw poll that the <br />application was complete and the site was not a significant resource by Goal 5 standards. He said that draft <br />findings were included with the agenda item summary, which outlined the council’s options. He noted that <br />the Lane County Board of Commissioners had met that morning and voted to postpone the issue until its <br />May 1 meeting. He noted that Kent Howe and Stephanie Schulz of Lane County Planning Division were <br />available to answer questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman commented that a major issue was Delta Sand and Gravel’s claim that there would be no <br />increase in production and therefore no increase in the number of trucks. She said that should be reflected in <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />