05/26/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

., e e - .f feeling that placing this matter before the voters in June, as proposed by the County, would not allow time for the public education efforts that would be needed to explain this matter to the public and garner support for it. Mayor Keller noted that there was discussion of a citizen-initiated serial levy to support law enforcement and reported that the cities' representatives had voted unanimously in opposition to such a levy. Mayor Keller said that he was not certain whether the council's message of support for an adequate County budget had been made clear to the commissioners. Ms. Engen then reported on a proposal presented to the County Commissioners earlier in the day by the Sheriff and the District Attorney, calling for revi- sion of the Budget Committee recommendation, with $2.5 million allocated to the Sheriff's and District Attorney's offices and $538,000 returned to the cities, based on per capita figures, for law enforcement. Ms. Engen said that this proposal had subsequently been modified to include support for funding of existing intergovernmental agency agreements. She said that the commissioners had taken no action on this proposal, but that the Budget Committee proposal had been defeated by the commissioners on a 2:3 vote. Ms. Engen said that that the commissioners had asked for comments from the Eugene City Council on the pro- posal of the Sheriff and District Attorney. Councilor Wooten said she believed that the Eugene City Council had demonstrated its support for County efforts to stabilize local government economy. She felt, however, that the County was acting in haste with current proposals and that presenting any County levy proposal to the public should be delayed until September to allow time for the adequate review of all proposals, for informing the voters regarding the proposal, and also for the voters to realize the impact of the loss of County services. She felt that the council should give support for the County's efforts but withhold any recommendation on this proposal. Councilor Miller said that the council should express its appreciation for the County's attempt to address some of the concerns of the City. She felt, how- ever, that the council needed to give thorough consideration to any proposals before acting on them. Ms. Miller said that by her calculations the recommenda- tion of the District Attorney and County Sheriff called for one-sixth of the proposed "A" Ballot levy to be returned to the cities for law enforcement. She questioned how this figure had been derived and wondered if it bore any relation to existing service duplication. She felt that the decision on use of the funds allocated to the City from a County "A" Ballot should be made through normal City budgeting channels and that the County should not impose budgeting prior- ities on the City. Councilor Smith agreed that the council should express its thanks to the County Commissioners for this spirit of cooperation. She felt that it would not be responsible for the the council to take a stand on the County proposals without reviewing a written proposal and staff analysis of that proposal and its impact on the citizens of Eugene and the Eugene budget process. Councilor Schue summarized the concerns that had been expressed by councilors: 1) there needs to be ample time before any ballot measure to allow an oppor- tunity to get information to the voters; 2) essential intergovernmental services MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1982 Page 3