Laserfiche WebLink
financial problems because annexation removed property from the district’s tax rolls, resulting in the highest <br />tax rate for any park district in Oregon, which was $3.0559 cents per $1,000. <br /> <br />Mr. Lockard discussed the negative impact on district revenues that arose because of the end of the 20-year <br />agreement between Eugene and the district. He noted the five options presented to the council and reviewed <br />the elements of Option 1, which was reflected in the staff-prepared motion included in the meeting materials, <br />and suggested it was not enough in itself to avoid reductions in district operations. He believed the required <br />reductions would take the life blood out of the district given the choices that would be left to the board of <br />directors. He preferred the options that restored or increased funding and created a window for other decisions <br />that needed to be made. <br /> <br />Mr. Lockard acknowledged the political unpopularity of the option of annexation of the area encompassed by <br />the district, but said he believed that was the appropriate long-term approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Helikson discussed the board’s understanding that the funding provided through the IGA between Eugene <br />and the district was in lieu of tax payments on property annexed to the City of Eugene. The formula <br />established at the time worked for 20 years. When year 21 was reached, City staff decided that what had <br />worked for 20 years did not work anymore, and rather than negotiate a new amount, told the district to “take it <br />or leave it.” That placed the district in a terrible position. He could not understand why the City would <br />attempt to destroy the finest park in the area because he believed that was the result of its approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Helikson said the cause of the district’s funding problem was the City’s incremental annexation program, <br />which had devastated the district’s tax base. The City created the problem, and it was the district’s position <br />that the City should take care of the problem. He suggested that the lack of City attention to the issue was a <br />strategy on the part of “someone, somewhere,” to eliminate the district. He said the district was not seeking to <br />get rich and only sought the amount that allowed it to maintain its existing programs. He thought that was in <br />the best interest of both the district and City. If the district did not receive the money, it would reduce <br />maintenance and services and City residents would pay higher fees to use district facilities. Mr. Helikson said <br />if the City ever assumed responsibility for the district, it was in the City’s interest to ensure the district was <br />well-run and well-cared for. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to district representatives for the presentation and noted her familiarity <br />with the district through her role as the area’s representative in the House. She then left the meeting for a <br />personal obligation. Mr. Pryor assumed the chair. Mr. Zelenka also left the meeting for a personal obligation <br />and indicated he would view the portion of the meeting he was obliged to miss at a later date. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark thanked the district’s board and staff. He spoke of his own use of recreational facilities as a youth <br />and stressed their importance to residents, particularly families. He said that funding was a challenge in the <br />current environment faced by both the district and the City, which also was in the position of relying on its <br />reserves. The City faced escalating costs and any changes in its revenue stream would have a dramatic effect. <br />He advocated for creative thinking in this instance. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark noted that he had received an e-mail from River Road resident Rob Handy that indicated his belief <br />that 55 percent of district patrons were from the Santa Clara area. He asked if the district had considered <br />attempting to incorporate Santa Clara residents in the district and if those residents were charged non-resident <br />fees. Mr. Lockard confirmed that non-residents were charged an extra fee, but it was about the same as the <br />City’s fees for residents because Santa Clara residents had a choice. He said that the district could not offer a <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br />