04/11/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

> . . under the terms specified in the letter requesting the City's consent. Staff is in no position to recommend the City agree to the expense, but is proposing consent for the remodeling of the jail on the basis that Lane County pay the expense. Mr. Long indicated his office and ~ the City Manager had met with County officials and communicated to . them that his office would not recommend the City incur that expendi- ture. He also indicated there were other issues, i.e., acquisition of the jail and ground rules for housing City prisoners, which the City would like to discuss at one time. The County indicated it was not ready to move ahead on these other issues. In response to a question from Mr. Delay, Mr. Long said the City does pay a per capita fee of operating expenses for City prisoners. However, the City does not pay for housing of State prisoners. If the prisoners are in the jail on a charge other than a State charge, whatever jurisdiction places them in jail pays for the prisoner costs. Mr. Long said this request for sharing expenses of the remodel was being made only of Eugene, and not other cities in the county because of the existence of the 1973 contract. Manager said negotiations with the County had started at least three years ago, with the assumption that the new jail would be operating and the old jail would be cleared for additional parking space. Now it seems that the County needs the old jail for additional prisoner space. Two months ago, the County indicated they would keep the old jail only one more year; however, it now appears that the old jail will be used for another three to five years. Mayor Keller noted this was one area where he felt perhaps some progress could be made in dealing with double taxation. He did not think the City residents should pay for additional costs just because they live in Eugene. . Assistant City Manager said an agreement for jail ownership resulted from the City's owning the jail at one time, with major renovations needed. Lane County acquired a half-interest in the jail because of investments they made at that time for the renovations. The City operated the jail until 1972 when the current contract went into effect. Under that contract, any time improvements were made, the County and City would split improvements fifty percent. He noted there were times when the County was unable to pay its fifty-percent share, and the City went ahead and footed the entire bill. He wanted Council to know staff's recommendation today is not inconsistent with the way the City has dealt with the County historically. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to authorize notification that the City concurs with the remodeling of the jail, contingent on Lane County bearing all costs. Motion carried unanimously. 4/11/79--2 - Z-13