My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2008
>
CC Agenda - 11/10/08 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:27:14 PM
Creation date
11/7/2008 11:23:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/10/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
View images
View plain text
district. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz thanked the representatives of the district. She commended Emerald Park and noted her own <br />family’s use of its facilities. She concurred with Mr. Helkison’s remarks and said the City and district needed <br />to decide where they were heading and what the end product was. She said the City was already struggling to <br />provide recreation and parks services for residents within its tax base. She invited more input into an ultimate <br />solution. She was seeking an equitable solution because not all parts of the community received the same <br />services, depending on their location. Ms. Ortiz suggested that the meeting was the beginning of a longer <br />conversation and hoped that no one came to that discussion with a predisposition of where the discussion <br />would go. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon thought Mr. Helikson’s remarks “cut to the chase” as she believed annexation would solve many <br />of the problems facing the City and district. She was not happy with the City’s current annexation policies <br />because she believed they needed to be more aggressive. However, she was unsure that the City could afford <br />to provide the programs being offered by the district. She thought the $100,000 investment the City made was <br />a good value given that the district was serving a large portion of the community. She was somewhat torn as <br />how to proceed and was unclear as to how the discussion now differed from the discussion that led to the IGA. <br />Mr. Helikson said that the IGA was put into place because the Boundary Commission wanted some arrange- <br />ment between the two parties before it started approving annexations. He did not think anything had changed, <br />and if the City had continued to honor the IGA, the meeting would not have happened. He thought the IGA <br />had worked out well until the City unilaterally decided the amount was $100,000. He reminded the council of <br />the circumstances in regard to sewers that existed at the time, leading to the requirement for any development <br />to annex. <br /> <br />Mr. Haniuk pointed out the IGA was a collaborative agreement but the City had been the party that initiated it <br />because of what was expected to happen in regard to annexation over the next 20 years. Now people were <br />only annexing for the purpose of development. The district had many areas that were subsequently annexed <br />into Eugene, eliminating revenue to the district. <br /> <br />In regard to the concept that this was the beginning of a longer conversation, Mr. Haniuk pointed out that the <br />district could not wait for much longer before it would have to reduce services. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said that if the City were to absorb the district in the future, she thought it would be better to <br />absorb a healthy district rather than allowing the district to “die slowly on the vine” and then inherit something <br />that required a huge infusion of cash. Mr. Helikson did not think the City could operate the district as frugally <br />as it was operated now because the two entities did not have the same cost basis. <br /> <br />Speaking to the implication in the meeting materials that the district’s services were so good they would have <br />to be brought down to the City’s level, Mr. Helikson said that the district and City could arrange to make the <br />park accessible to all residents with the appropriate funding. He did not think there was a reason to equalize <br />services to make them all equally bad. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Mr. Helikson about equalizing services by making them equally bad. <br />Ms. Taylor noted her long-held belief that the City’s piecemeal annexation policy was mistaken. She said it <br />appeared to her that the district was offering services at a level the City used to maintain. She recalled that the <br />council had made reductions to the City’s recreation programs during the Ballot Measure 47/50 process that <br />she continued to regret. While she did not want to bring services down, she questioned if the City could <br />continue to afford to help fund the district’s programs. She acknowledged a need to consider the original IGA <br />as well. Ms. Taylor was unsure of her final position on the subject. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).