Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

important it be in the best possible shape. He recognized the district’s importance to the residents he represented in Santa Clara. He thought it would be difficult for the City to duplicate the level of service now provided for the amount expended. Mr. Clark appreciated the good job the district did and said the issues for him came down to equity and priorities. He thought it logical the district would want to address the fact that many Santa Clara residents used the facility but did not live in the district, but acknowledged the political difficulty that might present. He thought there was an equity issue involved. He suggested the demise of the Boundary Commission might present new opportunities in that regard. Mr. Helikson believed it would be self-defeating to annex Santa Clara if the City continued its piecemeal annexation program; the problem would last “forever.” Mr. Clark said that the City needed to consider both the revenue side of the picture as well as the increase in demand experienced by the district in regard to services provided to Santa Clara. The City was not in the position to provide the same excellent service to its residents as the district provided, and there was an equity issue in that regard as well as a priority issue that he continued to struggle with. Mr. Helikson indicated the district would be willing to waive out-of-district fees for City residents if an equitable arrangement with the City could be reached. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz about the change in funding, Mr. Carlson attributed it to the City’s financial situation at the time. He said the City was cutting its recreation programs, and the question then became how the City could cut its own programs without reducing its contribution to the park district. He estimated the cost of restoring the amount at about $140,000. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Ortiz about the City’s budget, Mr. Carlson said the City used reserves to balance the budget in the last two years, and proposed to do so again this year. That eliminated the City’s Reserve for Revenue Shortfall going into fiscal year 2010. He said that restoring the contract would require the City to make service reductions or find revenue increases. Ms. Ortiz wished the City could write the district a check to make it whole and continue its services. Speaking to the issue of the County, she pointed out that the County had not always been in crisis and given that the district’s constituents were largely County residents, she wondered why the board had not held the County’s “feet to the fire” to a greater degree. Mr. Helikson said the district never seemed to be in crisis when the County had money. Ms. Bettman noted the County’s lack of a systems development charge for parks. Ms. Ortiz said that life was full of inequities, and she frequently saw people that had access to much more than other people, which was her reason for being on the council. She was not asking the district to lower its standards; she thought there could be a middle ground in that regard. Ms. Ortiz suggested a parks district for the entire community might be an appropriate solution. Mr. Weigandt noted the precedent that existed in Springfield in regard to the Willamalane Parks and District. He emphasized that the district was under scrutiny by its residents and that was one of the reasons its programs were so good. He hoped the district was not penalized because of its quality programming. Speaking to the issue of the County funding situation, Mr. Carlson pointed out that the residents of the district and the City were all County residents. He recalled that the County was also in a fiscal crisis in 1983, which was when it got out of the business of providing urban parks altogether. He suggested there would be no equity in the County funding parks services to River Road residents but to no other County residents. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 7 Work Session