07/28/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

; significant drop. The County has allocated Federal CSA funds to participate in e the joint social service program and has put $63,000 into special service contracts. With respect to the membership status and voting privileges, a question that has been raised by councilors, each of the intergovernmental agencies has somewhat different legal arrangements and yet all of them seem to have a common thread of flexibility that would permit a policy board to draw up some kind of policy allowing for temporary participation in light of financial problems. An agency which is having difficulty either paying the full amount or any amount could continue to participate in the agency policy boara and then return to full financial and voting participation when they could financially afford it. Staff recommendaiton is that the City work along those lines. These agencies are of direct benefit to all and it would not be in the City's interest or in the general interest of all the partners to have these agencies fall apart or have a limited participation. Staff is available to work with each of the councilors who have certain assignments with these agencies and will try to develop specific strategies around the peculiarities of the voting provisions in the intergovernmental agency agreements. Councilor Schue thanked staff for the comments. She said they had been especially helpful because she has some responsibility for both L-COG and LRAPA which are involved. She expressed hope that the City would continue to talk with the County and that City departments and staff would discuss the long-term funding implications of the City-County relationship. This past spring the County expressed some interest in the fact that these discrepancies did exist and this may not be the time to solve them. Councilor Wooten agreed that it is in the best interest of city residents to e have cooperation and participation by the County in multiple-jurisdiction agencies. At the same time, over a period of time it may be unfair to the taxpayers of the city of Eugene to continue to have the County be a full voting member in intergovernmental groups without paying their fair share of the costs of that organization. She expressed an assertive request to provide some kind of equitable exchange. She asked at what point talks with the City would be initiated. Mayor Keller responded that the general sense about meetings at this point is that it would probably not be extremely successful to continue until after the election. If the levy succeeds, he would hope that a preliminary discussion by the three boards could be held. There might be a slight delay as the County puts together the programs that they would be putting into place, which might delay a meeting. After so many years of concentrated effort on behalf of all the agencies and primarily by the City, it is difficult to have to step back. It appeared that for the first time perhaps in the history of those negotiations that something was about to happen. The City can certainly be sensitive to the idea that the anticipated revenues have shrunk. Having 80 percent of the revenues go to county residents versus 20 percent going to the City is a diffi- cult posture because the City recognizes the County's financial crisis. Whether the County levy fails or passes, the key message that must be shared is that the voters have to take a good hard look at benefits derived. Councilor Wooten added that regardless of whether the County levy fails or passes, a resolution to the problem of double taxation must be pursued. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 P~e4