Laserfiche WebLink
circumscribed and whatever proportional share the City was receiving in the existing budget was not shifted <br />to whatever contractual agreements were made. Mr. Ruiz pointed out that the funding recommendations in <br />the AIS were not 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 not supplanting 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 />Ms. Ortiz distributed an information sheet on HSC funding and the history of jurisdictional support. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark objected to discussions of cross-jurisdictional responsibilities on one side of the equation, but not <br />the other. He agreed with Ms. Piercy’s remarks that it was all part of a larger system and issues had to be <br />addressed in a balanced and equitable way. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the council needed to do the best it could for the people it represented within the system <br />and the City had consistently donated more from its General Fund than either Lane County or Springfield. <br />Mr. Ruiz reiterated his assurance that equity principles would apply. <br /> <br />The motion as amended passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />