Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/27/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room-City Hall May 27, 2003 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary PapS, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling. As Mayor James D. Torrey had not arrived, Council President Gary Pap8 called the meeting to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Poling had no items. Mr. Kelly referred City Manager Dennis Taylor to an e-mail he sent to the council and staff on May 23 regarding the temporary Interstate 5 bridge replacement over the Willamette River and asked that the information requested be available prior to the joint elected officials meeting. City Manager Taylor indicated that the requested information would be sent out well in advance of the meeting. Ms. Solomon reminded the council of the "We Are Bethel Celebration," which would occur on May 31 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Petersen Barn. There would be many family-oriented activities scheduled throughout the day. She encouraged councilors to attend the event. Ms. Nathanson said she had sent an e-mail to the council about an opportunity to move some above-ground utilities underground. The opportunity had arisen in conjunction with the first phase of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project on Franklin Boulevard. She noted that the City and the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) had an agreement calling for utilities to be undergrounded when possible for aesthetic and safety reasons. She noted that the corridor in question was part of the recent Downtown Visioning process, and the two-block area involved included the edge of the Riverfront Renewal District and was adjacent to the site of the new federal courthouse. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to request that the City Manager bring back a proposal to the council for participating in a project to underground the utilities for the section where utilities were being impacted by the BRT project, and describe how Riverfront Renewal District and any other potential funding sources would be used for Eugene's share of the cost, to be shared also with the Lane Transit District (LTD) and EWEB. Ms. Bettman thought the idea in the motion laudable but suggested that the topic should be the subject of a work session. She questioned the use of urban renewal dollars given that a public MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 1 Work Session input process regarding the district and potential projects had only recently begun, and suggested that might be a more appropriate process to address undergrounding opportunities. Responding to a suggestion from Ms. Bettman that timing was not an issue given that the dollars in question did not yet exist, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson said that timing was an issue as LTD anticipated it would go to bid for the project in the new few months; he clarified that the funding request would be for existing urban renewal dollars. Ms. Bettman indicated she had some issues about the subject as it related to the financing of the project and project timing. She called for a work session on the topic rather than a shod five- minute discussion. Ms. Nathanson said that the motion was to direct the manager to bring back a proposal for council consideration, rather than to direct the expenditure of funds. Ms. Bettman questioned whether the staff should be directed to do further work if the council had not agreed it wanted to move forward. Ms. Bettman moved to table the motion until a work session could be scheduled. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Meisner had concerns about the motion because he questioned whether the expenditure being proposed represented the highest and best use of the district's funds. He said that the City would have less land to market in the area because of other decisions that had been made about Millrace and preservation of the Agripac offices. He questioned both the funds available and what other needs existed in the district. He requested extensive financial analysis from staff regarding the district and the district's cost recovery from its purchase of the courthouse site. Mr. Kelly concurred with the comments of Ms. Bettman and Mr. Meisner. He expressed concern about the council's recent trend toward having mini-work sessions under "items." He suggested that the council consider a way it could accommodate motions that prompt several minutes of discussion. Mr. Kelly asked if Ms. Nathanson and Ms. Solomon would accept a friendly amendment indicating the proposal would be brought back at a work session. Ms. Nathanson and Ms. Solomon agreed. Mr. Kelly asked that the proposal include the financial analysis requested by Mr. Meisner as well as information about other undergrounding opportunities. Mr. Pap~ asked if EWEB had the funds to support undergrounding utilities. He also requested information about the funds LTD might have to support such a project. Ms. Bettman determined from City Manager Taylor that he did not think the motion precluded staff from returning with a range of funding option. Ms. Nathanson concurred, saying that was her intent. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Pap~ said that he and Ms. Nathanson were working with City Manager Taylor on next steps in the goals process, and at the suggestion of Mr. Taylor had two proposals to offer, one of which involved hiring a consultant to work with the council and another that related to the structure of the goals session. He said that in the absence of objections, he would like the manager to proceed. Ms. Taylor noted her objection to having another facilitator. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor said a constituent was upset about the way Eugene took care of its signs and sent her a picture, which she circulated. Ms. Taylor said that a constituent asked her if the City could save money by eliminating duplicate traffic lights at traffic stops. Ms. Bettman said she attended the groundbreaking of Southside School earlier that day, and she characterized it as a happy occasion. She thanked the community for passing the bond measure that made the new school possible. Ms. Bettman said the City Council had received requests from an architectural and development firm and from the Lane County Homebuilders Association proposing amendments to the Land Use Code for the fall 2003 code amendments package. She had heard from constituents not in the development community who also had changes they would like to propose to the code, and asked what process was in place to process such requests. Mr. Taylor indicated he would follow-up with a recommendation, noting the potential that the Budget Committee might adopt additional funding for the Planning Division that could help support the needed staff work. Mr. Meisner announced the upcoming special meeting of the City Club on May 29 at the Hilton Hotel, where Senator Ron Wyden would be the guest speaker. Mr. Meisner announced the dedication of the new pergola and gazebo at the Owens Rose Garden on June 6. He thanked the Rotary Club for its volunteer effort in constructing the new amenities. B.RECONSIDERATION OF WHITBECK KNOLL DECISION The council was joined by City Attorney Glenn Klein for the item. Mr. Taylor referred the council to a memorandum from Mr. Klein explaining his recommendation that the council reconsider its May 12 decision on the Whitbeck Knoll appeal. Mr. Klein wanted to ensure that the council did not base its decision on correspondence that was received after the record was closed. He asked that the council reconsider its action and reject the letters received after the record was closed. He recommended that a proponent of the motion offer a motion to reconsider the council's previous action. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to reconsider the motion related to the Whitbeck Knoll appeal, made by the City Council on May 12, 2003. Ms. Bettman said the letter from the developer appeared before the council made its decision, and it was obvious that some councilors made their decision on the basis of the letter. The other letter mentioned in the packet materials questioning the process had appeared later. She asked the impact of rejecting those letters from the record, given that councilors had considered the letters in their decision-making process. Mr. Klein said that just because a councilor voted in favor of the motion to uphold the appeal did not mean that he or she had to do so again. He advised the council to consider the appeal without considering the letter from the developer (Gordon Anslow). Mr. Klein reminded the council that the decision was to be based on the record, and the written decision included in the council packet at that time was prepared before the developer's letter was received, and that was the decision that was adopted. He said that if the council rejected the letters from the record, they were no longer in the record and they could not MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 3 Work Session legally form the basis for an appeal. He likened the situation before the council to a situation where a judge directed jury members to disregard testimony they had heard in court. Ms. Bettman asked if the process being proposed was the only process open to the council. She preferred to reconsider the entire issue and suggested that the council retroactively extend the public comment period and retain the letters in the record. Mr. Klein indicated that could be done. He said that if the motion to reconsider the appeal passed, the council would be back at the point of considering adoption, and then it had many options open to it. Ms. Bettman asked the effect of extending the record. Mr. Klein said that it raised the issue of whether the public had been treated fairly, and whether other members of the public should have an opportunity to raise additional issues. He suggested that if the council wanted to add the letters in question to the record, it would reopen the record, add the letters, and leave the record open for a period sufficient for others to provide comment. Ms. Taylor believed the only way that the situation could be made fair would be if the neighbors had the opportunity to write a letter to the City Council regarding their version of the meeting between residents and the developers that the council could be directed by the City Attorney to disregard. As it was, the letters were in councilors' minds and part of the decision-making process. Ms. Nathanson said she would vote to reconsider the motion for the reasons stated by Ms. Taylor. She said that if she was to disregard the letter, she would have to change the way she voted on the appeal. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to reject from the record Mr. Anslow's letter of May 9, Barbara Lee's letter of May 14, and any other documents from the public which were not a part of the record when it closed. Ms. Bettman did not see how the rejecting the letter from Mr. Anslow affected the decision-making process. It was information that people had and could not easily disregard. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend to add the May 9 letter from Mr. Anslow and the May 14 letter from Barbara Lee to the public record and to leave the record open until Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. so that others can offer comment. The motion to amend failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. The council reconsidered the motion passed on May 12, 2003, which was to adopt the final order included in the meeting packet providing for the Whitbeck application to go through the subdivision process rather than the planned unit development (PUD) process: Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to affirm the Planning Commission's decision that only the standard subdivision procedures should apply to the proposed four-lot subdivision, including the final order and MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 4 Work Session findings and conc/usions of the Eugene City Council regarding Whitbeck Knoll (Attachment A). Ms. Bettman believed the PUD process was more important than ever before because it allowed for another public hearing and more expertise in the development process. She said that the PUD process would give the neighbors a chance to feel involved in the process and allow them to voice their concerns at a public hearing. Ms. Taylor also felt it important to give the neighbors all the chances possible to comment, and it was even more important than ever now, given the irregularities that arose in the process. Ms. Nathanson asked if it was possible that a decision to support the PUD process would set a precedent for the future, or was it specific to this situation. Ms. Childs did not anticipate the situation in question would happen frequently. She characterized it as an unusual situation. Mr. Pap~ determined from Ms. Childs that there would be public notice and an opportunity for the residents to comment in writing prior to a final decision on the subdivision application. There was also be an opportunity for appeal. Mr. Pap~ said that while he appreciated the letter the council received from Mr. Anslow, he had supported the subdivision application on the basis of predictability and because of the business climate survey, which indicated that the City did not do a good job in giving developers the certainty they need when they enter into City processes. Mr. Poling said that he reviewed the agenda item summary for the item and the various processes that had gone on. Even without the letters that were removed from the record, he was of the opinion that the Planing Director followed the proper process when she reached her decision that the application should go through the subdivision rather than the PUD process. He supported the motion. Ms. Taylor wanted to give the neighbors all the advantages possible, and advocated for the PUD process. She would have felt better about the process if the letters had been allowed into the record. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting no. C.WORK SESSION: Special Districts Assistant City Manager Carlson joined the council for the item. He reminded the council that the last time it discussed special districts was on November 13, 2001, as part of a larger revenue discussion. At that time, the council agreed it would not go forward with a non-property tax revenue source. During 2002, the council had focused on several financial issues, including the transportation finance issue, the library local option levy, the downtown fire station general obligation bond, and the youth school local option levy. In 2003, as the council worked on the budget, it recognized the structural imbalances that existed, which generated interest in investigating alternative revenue sources, one of which was the special district concept. Special districts are primarily a property tax solution. Because of the overall decline in the local economy, staff had included information on the Ballot Measure 5 compression issue in the packet materials. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Carlson noted that Sue Cutsogeorge of the Central Services Department was present to answer any questions about the packet materials. Mr. Carlson noted that the formation of special districts would require amendments to the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. It would require action by the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission and potentially legislative changes to the boundary commission's statutory charge. He said that such districts had the potential to offload some General Fund burden and free up resources in the existing General Fund that could be applied to other council priorities, but such districts did not solve the structural imbalances created by increases in the cost of Public Employees Retirement System, health care, and overall inflation, which continued to exceed the growth in revenues from the property tax. Mr. Carlson suggested that such districts could merely be a way of forestalling such problems. Regarding the issue of compression, Mr. Carlson reported that there was still some room under the $10 property tax cap for general government. He noted the differences in that cap created by the passage of Ballot Measure 50, which limited, capped, and cut assessed values so that there became a gap between assessed and market value. The $10 cap imposed on general government by Measure 5 applied to real market value rather than assessed value. While the City's tax rate for fiscal year 2003 was about $9.12, the $10 expressed in assessed value was about $12, leaving room for growth. With the decline in real market value and changes in the local option levy, the City had about $20 million under the cap. Mr. Carlson cautioned the council that when properties were revalued, their real market value may equal their assessed value, particularly in the case of commercial properties. Where the stated property tax rate was over $10, a property with a real market value equal to its assessed value would be in compression, so the City would not receive all the revenue that would otherwise be available for that property. He anticipated that in FY04 the City's stated tax rate would be over $10, and the City would be in compression on some properties. He noted that local option levies were affected first by the cap. A special district, if formed with a permanent tax rate, would be a peer to the City in terms of its tax rate, and so local option levies would be affected by compression before the regular tax rate was. Mr. Carlson suggested that the library was the best candidate for consideration as a special district because of the existing local option levy, which funded about one-half of the library's operating costs and must be renewed every four years; the library was a popular service with voters; there was a community push to provide library services on a countywide basis; and the library was not an instigator of urban growth in the same way infrastructure such as streets and sewers was. Mr. Carlson indicated a vote on a special library district could be held in May 2006. Mr. Pap~ solicited council questions and comments. Mr. Meisner said the creation of special districts would not be easy. Such districts would not reduce property taxes but in the case of a library district would merely free up money from the General Fund now dedicated to the library for other services. Eugene taxpayers would pay a district tax in addition to their City taxes. Mr. Meisner noted his continued opposition to paying for permanent services with temporary taxes. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Meisner suggested that there were two motivations behind those advocating for such a district. One was to provide services outside the city, and the second was to sustain existing library services. Those motivations created challenges in developing a district tax base that was equitable to the Eugene residents who built the library and supported its operations, and in fulfilling the promises made by district proponents regarding library services in unincorporated areas. Mr. Meisner said that promises of additional branches would be difficult to meet. He pointed out that the district would be reliant on the same property tax system as the City and would face the same problems the City had in attempting to provide additional services, and ultimately would have to turn to the voters for a local option levy to fund them. Mr. Meisner said that there were some technical problems with any proposed special district boundaries since there were portions of Eugene in neither the 4J nor Bethel school districts. People living in North Eugene were unhappy paying school taxes to support those districts when they were in the Junction City School District. That issue needed to be addressed. Mr. Kelly did not disagree with Mr. Meisner's comments about the complexity of the issue. He said that recognizing the complexity and challenges of such districts, he thought it worth moving forward with further discussion. He said that staff had done a good job of listing the questions that the council needed to consider before acting. Mr. Kelly thought the questions were good and the research envisioned challenging. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner about funding permanent services like the library with a four- year levy that must be renewed by the voters. He also believed it was unfortunate that there were so many unserved residents in the metropolitan area. For those reasons, he supported further work on a special library district, and wished those involved in moving the proposal forward well. Ms. Bettman said she wished that the information before the council had come with a price tag. There was considerable staff work involved, and she thought that going forward with further research without a price tag was not a thoughtful way for the City to proceed. Ms. Bettman referred to the needed Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan amendments and asked if they would be applied specifically to the library district concept. Mr. Carlson said that the amendments could be specific to libraries or they could address some of the fundamental principles in the plan related to the way services were provided. He believed it was an open question at this point. Ms. Bettman thought it a crucial question if it meant the City was opening the way for more special districts. If that was the case, she questioned why the library would be first service to be considered. She believed that under the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, special districts were only to be used as a transitional method of providing services, and relying on special districts for the provision of services represented a major policy change. Ms. Bettman asked the costs of administering special districts, suggesting that the formation of such districts would create a bureaucracy equal to the size of the City's bureaucracy. She asked if money would actually be saved. Ms. Bettman asked how much Eugene residents would pay for a new library district and if their levels of service would change. She wanted to quantify the benefit of such a district to Eugene residents. Ms. Taylor believed there were some risks in going forward but also risks in depending on the local option levy to underwrite library services. She thought it important for everyone to have library services, particularly school-aged children. Ms. Taylor noted that she had lived in a place with many special districts, and they created confusion for residents, particularly when it came to MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 7 Work Session election time. However, she was less concerned about delivering library services through a special district than she was about other services. She favored an investigation of special districts. Ms. Nathanson indicated she was not enthusiastic about the topic, although she thought that special districts had a place. She agreed with Mr. Meisner that such districts did not mean more money would be collected. If the purpose of such districts was to spread the burden of paying services more broadly to those who benefitted, she would be interested. However, she was concerned about the potential impact of such districts on existing services, which she feared could be degraded. Ms. Nathanson was not interested in taking any action that caused Eugene citizens to lose the services they now enjoyed and counted on. She was also not interested in breaching the City's commitment to new community branch libraries, as she thought that would anger many in the community. She pointed out that special districts would require separate administrative bodies and must have an elected oversight body, adding additional costs. Ms. Nathanson said that at this point, she was not interested in directing staff to do further research. Ms. Solomon asked if the City could have a local option library renewal and a special district proposal on the same ballot. City Manager Taylor said that could occur. Mr. Carlson indicated that the vote on the local option levy would require a double-majority if it appeared on a ballot other than the November ballot. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding Lane County's level of involvement in the topic, Mr. Carlson indicated that the County did not have any staff available to assist the City in its investigation of library service districts. At the request of Mr. PapS, Mr. Carlson reviewed the proposals submitted by the Lane Library League, one of which was promoting full library coverage across Lane County with four library districts, two existing and two new districts. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's remarks, Mr. Carlson suggested that if the City was interested in a library district proposal at all, it was preferable that the City, rather than the Lane Library League, develop such a proposal, given staff's expertise on Oregon's taxation system and library operations. He added that the City was working closely with the league. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding the impact of City's revenue actions on special districts, Mr. Carlson indicated that the City would not be able to impact the district's permanent tax rates. In terms of compression, all governments would be treated equally. Mr. Carlson said that the local option levies would be compressed first, so the City could not consume all the available property tax revenues. Mr. Pap~ thought the council should be looking at special districts as the responsible thing to do, but he preferred looking at the airport and Fire & Emergency Medical Services first as potential service districts. He preferred to defer the issue until the council had an opportunity to discuss those services and establish its highest priorities. He maintained that the airport was a regional facility and he thought the potential of regional partners should be explored. Mr. Pap~ called for a second round of council comments. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Carlson's remarks that the City was the best entity to explore the concept of special districts. The Lane Library League was more interested in the provision of MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 8 Work Session library services than the taxing implications and sustainability of a new service district. He shared Ms. Nathanson's concerns about the possible degradation of City services. Mr. Meisner shared Ms. Bettman's desire for information on the costs of a new service district and the potential benefit to residents. He also called for accurate demographic figures. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Pap8 that if the council was to look at regional issues, it should examine the services he had enumerated in that order, as well as parks and recreation services and the library. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend time for the item until 6:50 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Regarding the potential of a fire or parks and recreation service district, Mr. Kelly said he could not imagine delivering those services through a special district unless there was an interjurisdictional operational reason for doing so, such as the two cities merging their operations. He preferred to focus on the library service district issue at this time because of the many unserved residents in the metropolitan area. Speaking to the concerns expressed by Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner regarding the potential degradation of services, Mr. Kelly noted that the work plan assumed the district would have a tax rate adequate to fund the current level of City library services. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Carlson it was better that the City work on the details of a special district rather than the league. Mr. Kelly said he was interested in further discussion of delivering airport services through a special district, but pointed out that the airport did not rely on General Fund money while the library relied completely on General Fund or levy money. Ms. Bettman said that the fact special districts take precedence in the compression formula over local option levies was a concern to her. She could envision a situation where a special district eroded the collection of levies that the council had not even anticipated at this time. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Pap8 and Mr. Meisner's suggested prioritization in terms of future district discussions. Ms. Bettman did not see a way to make a special library district equitable to Eugene taxpayers given the investment they had already made in library services. She concurred with the basic premise of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan that such services should be provided by cities rather than special districts, believing that the district approach removed decision-making and accountability from the public and diluted the democratic process. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct staff to make further investigation, as outlined in Attachment A, and to report back to the council on issues relating to provision of library services under a library district. City Manager Taylor questioned whether the council would consider the special district option in the absence of Oregon's property tax limitations. He believed more considerable discussion MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 9 Work Session needed to occur before the council could conclude that special districts were the best way to provide community services. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Solomon voting yes. Mr. Carlson said he interpreted the motion as directing staff to tell the Lane Library League that the City was not interested in the formation of a special library district at this time. D.WORK SESSION: Proposals for Library Service to Nonresidential Children City Librarian Connie Bennett joined the council for the item. Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department Director Angel Jones also was present. Ms. Bennett reviewed four options for reaching those who lived outside the city limits and who did not receive library services or pay taxes for them and noted the associated cost for each option: Option 1-Continue to serve children residing outside the tax district via purchased, nonresident, full-service family cards. Option 2-Create need-based scholarship for existing nonresident family fee cards administered on a case-by-case basis. Option 3-School district administration of a card program for/ow-income K-12 students by issuing individual limited-use cards based on a set of agreed criteria (e.g., participant in free lunch and reduced lunch program). Option 4-KidsCards for afl children under 12 who five within Bethel and 4J school districts and five outside the City's taxing jurisdiction. This card would limit the child to use of the library's children 's collection only. Mayor Torrey arrived at the meeting and assumed the chair. He solicited council comments and questions. Referring to Option 3, Ms. Nathanson determined from Ms. Bennett that the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grant referred to was a federal grant administered by the State. Ms. Nathanson said that the grant appeared to be applicable to all the proposals, and asked Ms. Bennett to discuss what the City was already doing. Ms. Bennett said that staff had submitted a LSTA grant earlier in the year, and staff had just been asked to submit a full grant application later in the year. Staff would be working with the two school districts to flesh out the proposal, which was for a two-year grant to examine how the public library could best work with the schools to meet their needs. The effort would be based in part on the work that the Multnomah County Library did with school districts in that area. The first grant year was for planning and the second grant year was for implementation. Funding would start if 2004 if the grant was awarded. Ms. Bennett agreed with Ms. Nathanson that there was a high degree of overlap in terms of the grant's focus, but she had not mentioned the grant in the other options because they were more family- than school-based. Ms. Nathanson said she tended to want to let the grant process unfold and see how it turned out before making a decision. Mr. Meisner thought all the ideas being suggested by staff were commendable. He recollected that the Budget Committee had just approved using the library levy's first-year contingency fund MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 10 Work Session because of the mandated reduction to the library's collections and acquisitions budget. He supported having community organization groups providing scholarships to cover the costs of the options, but was not persuaded that the cost estimates were comprehensive and that the money would be adequate. Mr. Meisner asked what would happen if the council found a group ready to fund Option 2 this year; what happened the following year? Would it be the City's responsibility to provide scholarships to all out-of-district children? Mr. Meisner said that the provision of library services to County residents was a County responsibility, not a City responsibility. Ms. Bennett referred the council to the first page of the agenda item summary, which discussed what was not covered by the estimates. She said that all the options were for three years, and all represented interim solutions pending a permanent solution. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the creative options developed by staff. While he believed that library services for children were very important, he could not support any of the options before the council because of the potential that existing library services could be degraded, because of the potential stigma of a scholarship program accompanied with an application, and because of the potential that a situation would be created where a child turned a certain age and then lost his or her library card benefit. Ms. Bettman wanted to hear more about the potential of private support for library cards for out-of- city residents. She expressed appreciation for the options before the council but found them all to be expensive. She questioned the range of services and those served in each option. Ms. Bennett reviewed the four options and noted the basis on which the cost estimates were made for each. Given the reductions made through the recently completed budget process, Ms. Bettman said she could not see adding a new service at this time, even one she supported as much as the one in question. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Ms. Bettman. He did not see going forward with any of the options at this point in time. He did not want to diminish the library services provided to City residents. Mr. Pap~ recalled that when he was a child, schools had libraries, and he assumed that was still the case. Ms. Bennett said that school libraries in Oregon were in poor condition, and such libraries were one of the places budget reductions were occurring. She said that 1.5 FTE in library staff was available to service 28 elementary schools in School District 4J. Mr. Pap~ suggested that teachers might be able to assist. Ms. Taylor asked if the school districts could pay for library cards for school-age children. Ms. Bennett did not know, saying staff had not been directed to approach the districts. Ms. Taylor believed that a library card was a basic right, and indicated a preference for Option 4 because more people were served. Mayor Torrey expressed disappointment in the comments that had been made. He said he would be unable to raise enough money privately to supply cards to all needy youths. He believed that through its inaction, the council was doing a disservice to young, Iow-income children who need access to the library. Mayor Torrey noted that he had attended all but one Budget Committee meetings and heard frequent complaints about cutting services to children. He asked where the councilors had been last year when it was asked to leave the full, after-school program in place but the council decided against it and the program was reduced. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 11 Work Session Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of comments. Mr. Meisner believed that the council was committed to providing library services, but there was a difference between important community services for all, important community services for children, and what the City could provide. He said that there were limits on what the Eugene taxpayers could provide to nonresidents. The City was already providing money to nonresidents through the school levy. Speaking to the mayor's remarks, Mr. Meisner expressed the wish that the council had done more comprehensive planning for Ballot Measure 20-67. The use of those funds were restricted. He agreed that the school districts were not providing adequate library services to school children, and that the City could have done a better job of providing some of the levy money for school library services. However, he was not prepared to cut existing City services to provide the needed funding to provide library cards for nonresidents. Ms. Nathanson noted that reading for fun led to self-improvement and growth. She would have liked to have talked about the need for reading as the issue went beyond helping school libraries. She acknowledged that school libraries had been cut. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Meisner that the issue regarded what Eugene taxpayers provided to nonresidents. She noted that the library was a public building and open to all who visited it, not just residents. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Bennett said that staff was discussing expanding the section allowing people to take books without checking them out to children's use as well. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the concept be expanded to other community facilities. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, Ms. Bennett said that if the City was awarded the LSTA grant, the first grant year would involve research with the two school districts, and in 2005 a pilot program based on the first year of study would be done. She clarified that the grant would not solve the problem of how to provide greater library access to more school children, bur rather was designed to determine how the school and public libraries could work together more effectively. Ms. Bettman suggested that given the residents in question were County residents, more discussion with the Board of County Commissioners was needed. Speaking to Mayor Torrey's comments about the council's decision to limit the City's portion of the school levy, Ms. Bettman indicated she supported the action because increasing the percentage going to the City would have doomed the measure, which barely passed. Ms. Taylor asked if teachers could check out books for their classrooms. Ms. Bennett said yes, if the teachers in question were Eugene residents. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 12 Work Session MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 13 Work Session