CC MInutes - 02/17/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson asked if LC©G was aware of whether people moved to Eugene to be students at Lane Community College (LCC). Mr. Carlson indicated he would have to contact LCC for that information. He added that the LCC student population was very different from the University of Oregon student population in that most students were neither full-time or degree candidates. Ms. Nathanson referred to school enrollment figures and asked if LC©G had looked at trends for home schooling and private schools and if that changed the picture. Mr. Carlson responded that there was no significant change for the purpose of the information presented to the council. Enrollment in private schools was growing but the public schools still had a significant majority of students. Referring to the issue of commuting to work, Ms. Nathanson said that LC©G should convene a community discussion for the metropolitan area regarding land use and transportation issues. She believed that when Eugene adopted land use and transportation rules its actions could be contradicted or offset by the action or inaction of neighboring communities. She said that a community conversation was needed because growth was not just a Eugene issue. Mr. Meisner concurred with Ms. Nathanson. He said Eugene needed to look at such issues jointly and from a metropolitan point of view. He added that the council needed to be cautious about "opting out" of boundary changes such as the change occasioned by development of the sports complex in Springfield. Mr. Meisner asked if LCOG had any information on why people decide to live in Eugene. Mr. Carlson said that the information LCOG had was only anecdotal. The general theory was that most movement was economically induced. He added that the University was a source of permanent in-migration to Eugene. Mr. Carlson said that migration pressure had decreased as the economies in Washington and California improved. Mr. Lee asked if University of Oregon students were included in the information presented, such as income. Mr. Carlson said yes. He added that the existence of the University and the student population in Eugene was one of the reasons for the lower income levels. Mr. Lee asked if the income figures were broken down by race. Ms. Van Bloem said that information was available through the census. Mr. Lee asked how the council could address the fact that Eugene was an employment center for people living outside of the community and traveling on City roads to reach their place of employment. Mr. Johnson said that was a complex issue. Eugene had 70 percent of the employment in Lane County, meaning that people would commute to Eugene, but Eugene did not have the ability to tax outside its jurisdiction. Mr. Lee asked how the County handled the issue. Mr. Torrey said that the County does nothing about the issue now. Mr. Lee said it was wrong that Eugene residents were subsidizing other County residents' use of the infrastructure. Mr. Johnson believed the County would point to the transfer of Road Fund payments and in particular its assistance with some of the larger projects such as the Ferry Street Bridge and Chambers Connector as indicators of how it was offsetting those costs. Mr. Kelly referred to the community survey and said that he was concerned that the demographic breakdown on page 8 indicated that the respondents were heavily weighed toward owner- occupants. However, the distribution in the population was 51 percent owner-occupants and 49 percent renters. He had a similar concern about the ethnic demographics of respondents in MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 8 11:30 a.m.