Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Zelenka reminded the council that he had proposed the work session and said it was due to his concern about the status of funding for parks O&M. He contrasted the higher cost of rehabilitation to the lower cost of regular maintenance and suggested the council was being short-sighted in not adequately funding O&M. Mr. Zelenka suggested the City was “semi-rich in lands” and had money for acquiring more land, but lacked a plan to get funding to develop those lands. He wanted the council to recognize the magnitude of the problem that existed and the danger it would worsen if nothing was done. He suggested the danger was that the City would cut costs by closing facilities or letting them deteriorate. He wanted to avoid that and called on the council to develop a plan to address both park funding and development. Ms. Taylor did not think all parks needed to be developed parks, although she agreed the City needed to maintain its developed assets. She was happy the bond had focused on land acquisition due to the scarcity of land. She hoped the remainder of the bond proceeds were used to acquire crucial lands, especially those that affected the water supply. Ms. Taylor asked if the O&M backlog was divided into things that should be done now and things that could be put off. Mr. Medlin said staff had looked at different reduction scenarios and different approaches to keeping service levels as high as possible while still cutting costs. He cited mowing as an example, saying that the City cut the mowing of sports fields in half. There were limits to what the City could do in regard to reduced maintenance without seeing consequences. Mr. Medlin said staff discussed how to change maintenance frequencies while maintaining customer satisfaction, and he suggested that determining the appropriate and acceptable level of maintenance would be an iterative process. Ms. Taylor thought the City needed new sources of revenue and called for a work session on additional taxing mechanisms. She suggested a levy might be possible given residents’ value for parks, and thought the “adopt-a-park” concept mentioned by Mr. Clark might appeal to many people. Mayor Piercy did not believe the City could provide basic services using only charitable contributions or volunteer labor. She suggested the council needed to talk to the community about concepts such as “adopt- a-park.” Mayor Piercy invited suggestions to share with the new dean of the University of Oregon’s School of Business, Dennis Howard, who wished to do a big annual signature event with students that left a lasting mark on the community. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Taylor that not all parks needed to be developed parks. Mr. Zelenka believed the staff-suggested motion was adequate for the discussion, but it only addressed half the problem. He called for the development of a plan that included funding options to meet the City’s capital and recreation facilities renovation backlog, which was approximately $23 million. Mr. Clark suggested that the issue was not just how to get more money, but how the City could do business differently. He suggested that new and innovative ideas were needed. He said the staff-suggested motion did not cover that concern. Mr. Clark thought the City could look to examples of how services had been delivered differently and innovatively, and cited the Neighborhood Matching Grants Program as an example. Ms. Ortiz could not support putting out a bond measure this year or next year. She suggested the council consider turning over responsibility for facilities such as the Kaufmann Center to a private party and sell the MINUTES—City Council October 11, 2010 Page 6 Work Session