My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 04/09/08 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2008
>
CC Minutes - 04/09/08 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:27:35 AM
Creation date
5/22/2008 9:15:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/9/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
asset just to pay an operating expense. He said they were definitely discussing the concept of selling an <br />asset to pay down a liability, which would lower operating costs. He stated that commissioners had given <br />direction to administrative staff that if a payment was received after the fact, with the cuts already made, to <br />consider whether money should be applied to pay down long-term debt with the goal of stabilizing the <br />organization in the long-term. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor acknowledged that the sale of an asset, such as the fair grounds, would not solve the long-term <br />issue that the loss of the timber money presented. He understood the County was not just facing a “hump,” <br />rather what was ahead was a “plateau that would go on for a long time.” He also understood that <br />Washington, D.C. could not be counted on. He observed that the discussion of SDCs should acknowledge <br />that they could only be used for new capacity and could not be utilized to preserve existing programs. He <br />did not know what ability the County would have to preserve what was in place with SDCs. Mr. Stewart <br />affirmed that the constraints on SDCs were the same for the County as they were for the City. He stated <br />that it would not be an area that could solve the operating deficiency without a legislative change. <br /> <br />Mr. Stewart related that in the conversations he had in Washington, D.C. it had been made clear to him that <br />the program would go away, that it had never been intended as a long-term solution to the funding issue. He <br />said it was stressed to him that if an extension was granted it would be short-term. He reiterated that if they <br />did receive the payment, they had to consider whether it would be more prudent to pay down the operating <br />expenses to bring the County to a level where instead of continuing to make cuts, the organization could be <br />stabilized. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark commented that a lot of people had known “this day of reckoning” was coming. He averred that <br />the only responsible thing to do would be to begin to look at this in creative, innovative ways. He felt the <br />people had spoken clearly on potential revenue increases to the County and he did not believe this was an <br />open question anymore. He wanted to focus on ways the City could help the County. He related that the <br />DA’s office had indicated it needed 32 staff members for its typical case load, which was why they had <br />ceased to prosecute many crimes. He asked whether the DA had given an indication of which things they <br />would have to stop prosecuting with the further staff reduction of seven positions. Mr. Stewart replied that <br />the Board had not received this input from the DA at this time. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark encouraged the council and staff to begin conversations about the sorts of things the City could <br />take over in terms of prosecution. He related that the Human Right Commission (HRC) had held a scoping <br />conversation on hate crimes and potential changes to the city code. He said out of this conversation had <br />arisen the idea that if the City duplicated some of the state level statutes regarding hate crimes, its <br />prosecutor could begin to do some things at the city level that could potentially reduce the load on the <br />County. He reiterated his request for information on what the City could buy in terms of jail beds and <br />assimilating officers from the LCSO. <br /> <br />Ms. Jones pointed out that city staff had been having some of those conversations with the County in an <br />effort to explore how they could do things differently and creatively. She underscored that she did not want <br />to send a message that the City of Eugene had ample resources to address the holes in the county budget. <br />She said the City was not too far from the County and would have to look at how it would reshuffle the <br />services it provided in a couple more years. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the County would consider changing its policy of approving Enterprise Zones and urban <br />renewal districts in the face of the looming shortfall. Mr. Stewart replied that it was highly likely that if <br />another one of those mechanisms came before the County it would be considered differently. He stressed <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.