Item A: River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project

Home Browse Search

and the fixed level of City support payments. Practically speaking, for the “status quo” to be maintained in the long-term the City would have to agree to some sort of scheduled increase in support payments tied to a benchmark such as the consumer price index, land values or the rate of decline in the Districts tax base due to annexation. Advantages: Status quo is maintained, element of local governance (e.g.: locally elected special district governing board) is maintained Challenges: As incorporation of properties in River Road continues, the District’s tax base will shrink - eventually to the point that the combination of taxes, City payments, and out-of-District program fees may no longer adequately or logically support District services and facilities; at the point at which the District is down to one property (theoretically this would be Emerald Park) an annual City transfer payment of approximately $1.2 million would be required (note: this estimate is based on the current District operating budget). ? River Road Heritage Option No. 2: Expand Current Agreement with City – With respect to just the River Road neighborhood, include provisions in a modified agreement with the City allowing City resident fees for non-City residents wishing to use City programs and facilities. Note: see further discussion below on Santa Clara for additional related options. Advantages: Mirrors the current accommodation that Eugene makes for City residents in River Road wishing to use District facilities and programs; encourages cooperation between City and District services Challenges: Potentially draws off patronage from District facilities and programs; also to the extent that District payments to the City under such an agreement may counterbalance current City payments to the District, and the District’s operations may be a net loser. ? River Road Heritage Option No. 3:Expand District Services within River Road - Expand services beyond current agreements between the City and District by developing a contract whereby the District continues and expands its “home grown” services and potentially buys additional services from the City (or from other service providers for that matter), OR the City simply contracts with the District to be the direct provider of all recreation services in the neighborhood. Note: in some respects this option is not all that different from some of the agreements that are currently in place or being considered. The important distinction is the central benchmark that all parties would start from – that the District needs to be preserved as a community institution and primary service provider for as long as possible (rather than the District needs to negotiate its orderly dissolution). This same “benchmark” can apply to other heritage options discussed herein Advantages: The District would maintain its autonomy and status as an important home governed entity; a growing service provider is more likely to succeed as a long- term service provider; concerns over the future status of district employees, the gradual erosion of the district’s tax base through annexation, keeping SDC revenue within the neighborhood, etc. could be further mitigated through contract terms. Challenges: The District probably could not provide all the recreation services available through the City (suggesting the possible need for “reverse” cost reimbursements to Eugene to make City programs available to River Road); some River Road city residents may prefer direct service by Eugene; the City provides many recreation services to River Road (just not physically within River Road); other things being equal (such as adequate funding and other resources) the City could probably bring some cost efficiencies to recreation programming being a larger entity than even an expanded District 31 River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper DRAFT 11-24-05 Service provider Review