Laserfiche WebLink
solutions. He liked the concept of exchanging dollars with the County and would research how that could be <br />achieved. Chief Lehner stressed that the County had not requested any funding; he initiated conversations <br />with County officials to ascertain the impact on Eugene citizens when he saw the magnitude of the proposed <br />cuts. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark objected to the continuing discussion of whether the council should have input on how the County <br />operated. He said he had requested the work session because the council was elected to fix problems, not <br />blame, and should be working on solutions for the people of Eugene. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to bring to <br />the Budget Committee recommendations that reflected the policy discussions made <br />by the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that the council did not make policy decisions, but had policy discussions about equity <br />and providing services to the citizens of Eugene, assuring that the funds were circumscribed and whatever <br />proportional share the City was receiving in the existing budget was not shifted to whatever contractual <br />agreements were made. Mr. Ruiz pointed out that the funding recommendations in the AIS were not <br />intended to be used for County services or to supplant existing County resources. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed that was not the intent of the proposal but it was not explicit in the recommendations <br />how the County would use funds left in its budget once the City provided funding. She used the example of <br />funding two prosecutors and questioned whether the City would still receive the same service from the <br />existing District Attorney staff. Mr. Ruiz said he was in full agreement with the concept of equity. Mr. <br />Carlson clarified that the District Attorney was planning to spend zero dollars on prosecuting property <br />crimes; Eugene’s share of that was zero. He said the City was proposing to contract with the District <br />Attorney to prosecute property crimes that occurred in Eugene; those services would be specific to Eugene <br />and would not supplant funds the County was otherwise spending in unincorporated areas. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to add as a funding recommendation <br />Eugene’s portion of the $380,000 reduction to the Human Services Commission, <br />which would be bridge funding dedicated to Eugene citizens, with the amount to be <br />determined. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson noted that the City had already provided $140,000 to the Human Services Commission during <br />the current fiscal year and those funds had not been used. He said the County planned to use the funds for <br />human services countywide and the $380,000 represented a portion of services that were currently provided <br />to the unincorporated area. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark declined to accept the friendly amendment because of the lack of infor- <br />mation about other budgetary issues. <br /> <br />Chief Lehner said he understood Mr. Zelenka’s amendment was specific to the HSC funding, but not to a <br />particular program, and the same equity principles attached to the other recommendations would apply. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark accepted the friendly amendment if the equity rules applied to all of the <br />recommendations. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />