Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Helikson thought the amount determined through the IGA had been fair and questioned why it was no longer considered fair. He did not think the City was supporting district programs; rather, it was paying the district a small amount of money for the taxes it had taken away through incremental annexation. He said that $200,000 meant a lot more to the district than it did to Eugene. Ms. Taylor did not disagree. Ms. Bettman said that when properties in the district were annexed to Eugene, residents were paying for a broad range of services, and she maintained that district residents received services from the City at a reduced rate because they were not paying City taxes. She thought it important to look at the big picture. Ms. Bettman said the district was providing excellent services but needed a significant infusion of cash to do so. She questioned whether the City could provide the same services for the same amount of money. She also wanted to know what role the County played given that district residents were also County residents. Mr. Helikson said that the district had not approached the County. He said the district was supporting its own programs, and the City was paying the district for what it had taken away, and at what he considered a very low level. Mr. Lockard did not see how the County could help the district given its current financial situation. Central Services Director Jim Carlson said that the IGA was signed with the belief that annexation would occur over a 20-year period, and it was clear now that was not going to happen. There was no reason for a resident to choose annexation because they were getting the services they wanted without annexation. He pointed out that one major factor that had changed since the initial IGA was the passage of Ballot Measure 47/50, which had substantially impacted the annual increase in property taxes to the district. Those measures created a “sea change” in the way that all local governments were funded, including the City, which suffered from the same structural imbalance facing the district. Part of that was due to annexation, but much was due to Ballot Measures 47/50. Mr. Lockard pointed out that the City continued to receive the three percent increase in property taxes, which the district did not. Mr. Pryor said that instead of looking at managing a transition, the council was looking at the potential that the annexation situation in River Road could continue indefinitely. He suggested the community needed to consider at some point whether that was financially feasible given escalating costs. He asked if district representatives could envision the district being in place in 20 years, or would the question of financial feasibility prevent that. He believed staff had followed the council’s direction in regard to the funds given the district but the council could revise that decision, and he was supportive of continued funding; the question was what amount, and for how long. Mr. Pryor suggested that required a joint discussion. He supported continuing the funding while that discussion occurred in the amount of $100,000. He invited input on the question of the length of time funding would be provided. Mr. Helikson agreed a long-term discussion was necessary, but the board would appreciate the larger contribution with the commitment to work with the City on a long-term arrangement. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to follow the cur- rent direction for a one-time payment of $100,000 to the district in the FY09 Budget and to develop a work plan and timeline to explore a variety of partnership options between the dis- trict and the City that identifies a long-term sustainable strategy for the viable operation of the district until annexation occurs. Mr. Clark concurred with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. He said if the City ever acquired the district, it was MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 6 Work Session