CC Minutes - 01/26/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap6 emphasized that there was no question in his mind that these programs should be provided. He said the question, instead, was whether the resources were available to continue such programs. He pointed out that the next item on the agenda had to do with deficiencies in the City's fire service that were due to necessary budget choices. He commended the Adaptive Recreation Services but underscored that they were expensive programs. He asked staff how such programs would continue to be funded into the future. Ms. Grube responded that the program was supported by the General Fund. Participants did not tend to have a great deal of discretionary income. She stressed the value of the program in helping to keep people socialized and in their homes. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Harnly stated that the program received $500,000 from the General Fund and 20 percent of the cost was paid through fees. Mr. Pap6 commented that he appreciated the discussion on community partners. He asked if the United Way could help fund the programs. Ms. Grube responded that the program partnered with the United Way to provide some of the programs, but that United Way had not been asked to help pay for the City's adaptive recreation activities. Mr. Pap~ suggested quantifying the volunteer hours and delineating further partnerships to help the Budget Committee to understand how the $500,000 was being spent. Ms. Ortiz echoed Mr. Papa's request for more information regarding volunteer hours. She asked if there was a person dedicated to looking for other funding sources. Ms. Grube replied that there was not. Ms. Harnly stated, in response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, that community recreation was not able to access third-party reimbursement, e.g. insurance benefits, though staff did pursue smaller grants and funding mechanisms for programs. She noted one grant from Lane County that had run a specific program and only that program. Ms. Grube added that the City had partnered with the Lane Transit District (LTD) on a grant to acquire a vehicle for recreation services. Mr. Kelly cited the oft-repeated adage that a society is judged by how it cares for those who are least able to care for themselves. He felt adaptive recreation was a clear example of this. He averred it was a critical service and that the City of Eugene provided it very well. He noted that when cutting other recreational services during a previous budget cycle, adaptive recreation services had not been cut because it had been determined there were no comparable providers in the private sector that could take over. He asked if there were any other significant providers at this point. Ms. Harnly said there were none. Ms. Bettman valued the service adaptive recreation staff provided. She thanked staff for its dedication. She commented that people with family members with disabilities often had extraordinary expenses and opined the subsidy was ~worth it." Mr. Pryor called adaptive recreation the ~poor step-child even in the recreation world." He commented that corporations did not like to support such services and agencies such as United Way were already spread thin. He said it was something that one should %tep up to the plate" and find the money to do as it was not so much a recreation service as it was community development. He observed that, for a lot of children, this was how they learned to live and that it helped them to become a much more functional group of people. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the presentation and for the work the staff did. She said the MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2005 Page 2 Work Session