Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

projected would defer approximately $475,000 per year in tax revenue. She wondered why the County had not “gotten serious” about looking at collecting “the revenue that was due” to it. Mr. Stewart replied that if Ms. Bettman was referring to the zone in Oakridge, it had been in place for 11 years, no revenue had been generated, and therefore there had been no property tax reduction. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Stewart for his presentation. She remarked that it was difficult to consider the impacts of the budget on our future. She averred that people did not realize that organizations like the Buckley House had an impact on the community. She wondered if the Buckley House had any grant writing opportunities. She underscored that Buckley House was the only place an uninsured person with an alcohol or drug problem could go to. She predicted that citizens would notice its closure because the people it treated would be out on the street. Ms. Ortiz asked if the County had considered selling any excess properties. Mr. Stewart replied that such sales had been discussed at a low level by the board. He underscored that it would not be prudent to sell an asset just to pay an operating expense. He said they were definitely discussing the concept of selling an asset to pay down a liability, which would lower operating costs. He stated that commissioners had given direction to administrative staff that if a payment was received after the fact, with the cuts already made, to consider whether money should be applied to pay down long-term debt with the goal of stabilizing the organization in the long-term. Mr. Pryor acknowledged that the sale of an asset, such as the fair grounds, would not solve the long-term issue that the loss of the timber money presented. He understood the County was not just facing a “hump,” rather what was ahead was a “plateau that would go on for a long time.” He also understood that Washington, DC. could not be counted on. He observed that the discussion of SDCs should acknowledge that they could only be used for new capacity and could not be utilized to preserve existing programs. He did not know what ability the County would have to preserve what was in place with SDCs. Mr. Stewart affirmed that the constraints on SDCs were the same for the County as they were for the City. He stated that it would not be an area that could solve the operating deficiency without a legislative change. Mr. Stewart related that in the conversations he had in Washington, DC, it had been made clear to him that the program would go away and that it had never been intended as a long-term solution to the funding issue. He said it was stressed to him that if an extension was granted it would be short-term. He reiterated that if the County did receive the payment, it had to consider whether it would be more prudent to pay down the operating expenses to bring the County to a level where instead of continuing to make cuts, the organization could be stabilized. Mr. Clark commented that a lot of people had known “this day of reckoning” was coming. He averred that the only responsible thing to do would be to begin to look at this in creative, innovative ways. He felt the people had spoken clearly on potential revenue increases to the County and he did not believe this was an open question anymore. He wanted to focus on ways the City could help the County. He related that the DA’s office had indicated it needed 32 staff members for its typical case load, which was why they had ceased to prosecute many crimes. He asked whether the DA had given an indication of which things they would have to stop prosecuting with the further staff reduction of seven positions. Mr. Stewart replied that the board had not received this input from the DA at this time. Mr. Clark encouraged the council and staff to begin conversations about the sorts of things the City could take over in terms of prosecution. He related that the Human Right Commission (HRC) had held a scoping conversation on hate crimes and potential changes to the City code. He said out of this conversation had arisen the idea that if the City duplicated some of the State level statutes regarding hate crimes, its MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 8 Work Session