Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

the elements of Option 1, which was reflected in the staff-prepared motion included in the meeting materials, and suggested it was not enough in itself to avoid reductions in district operations. He believed the required reductions would take the life blood out of the district given the choices that would be left to the board of directors. He preferred the options that restored or increased funding and created a window for other decisions that needed to be made. Mr. Lockard acknowledged the political unpopularity of the option of annexation of the area encompassed by the district, but said he believed that was the appropriate long-term approach. Mr. Helikson discussed the board’s understanding that the funding provided through the IGA between Eugene and the district was in lieu of tax payments on property annexed to the City of Eugene. The formula established at the time worked for 20 years. When year 21 was reached, City staff decided that what had worked for 20 years did not work anymore, and rather than negotiate a new amount, told the district to “take it or leave it.” That placed the district in a terrible position. He could not understand why the City would attempt to destroy the finest park in the area because he believed that was the result of its approach. Mr. Helikson said the cause of the district’s funding problem was the City’s incremental annexation program, which had devastated the district’s tax base. The City created the problem, and it was the district’s position that the City should take care of the problem. He suggested that the lack of City attention to the issue was a strategy on the part of “someone, somewhere,” to eliminate the district. He said the district was not seeking to get rich and only sought the amount that allowed it to maintain its existing programs. He thought that was in the best interest of both the district and City. If the district did not receive the money, it would reduce maintenance and services and City residents would pay higher fees to use district facilities. Mr. Helikson said if the City ever assumed responsibility for the district, it was in the City’s interest to ensure the district was well-run and well-cared for. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to district representatives for the presentation and noted her familiarity with the district through her role as the area’s representative in the House. She then left the meeting for a personal obligation. Mr. Pryor assumed the chair. Mr. Zelenka also left the meeting for a personal obligation and indicated he would view the portion of the meeting he was obliged to miss at a later date. Mr. Clark thanked the district’s board and staff. He spoke of his own use of recreational facilities as a youth and stressed their importance to residents, particularly families. He said that funding was a challenge in the current environment faced by both the district and the City, which also was in the position of relying on its reserves. The City faced escalating costs and any changes in its revenue stream would have a dramatic effect. He advocated for creative thinking in this instance. Mr. Clark noted that he had received an e-mail from River Road resident Rob Handy that indicated his belief that 55 percent of district patrons were from the Santa Clara area. He asked if the district had considered attempting to incorporate Santa Clara residents in the district and if those residents were charged non-resident fees. Mr. Lockard confirmed that non-residents were charged an extra fee, but it was about the same as the City’s fees for residents because Santa Clara residents had a choice. He said that the district could not offer a broad recreational program without those residents because of the balance between fees and revenues. Mr. Weigandt said the district had explored expanding into the Santa Clara area but the boundary commission had not supported the proposal. Mr. Clark asked how the elimination of the boundary commission affected that issue. Mr. Lockard pointed out that the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) stipulated that the City was the logical provider of such services, although the district disagreed with that. Mr. Clark thought the Metro Plan, more than annexation policy, was the driver of the challenge facing the City and MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 4 Work Session