02/09/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I ! Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County) ,rhat authority would then determine whether the program would operate under a private agency or the public sector. He pointed out that the program involved only dog control at this time. Also, that there was no question the County computer facilities could adequately handle the addition ~. of the program. In response to Mr. Rose's statement that his information indicated .., the computer system would expe,rience 20% down time if the dog control program was ~dded, Assistant Manager said there had been a period of down time during the transi- tion period when putting law enforcement agencies on line, however there is now a high level of reliability, running in excess of 97%. Mr. Rose continued that computer technology specialists and people selling various makes of other types of computers (than that in use at the County) had told him that although problems had been "ironed out," they were not sure what problems would be encountered in adding the dog control program. Because of that he was trying to find out if there were sufficient facilities to operate at the present level. Manager noted the County had recently acquired a second computer and now had a great deal of additional data storage use. He said that during the' past summer be- cause of electrical storms and other emergency situations there had been substantial period of downtime. ,I I Councilman Bradley said both he and Councilman Hamel (as the city's representatives on the triagency authority) would meet with Mr. Rose after adjournment of this meet- ing with regard to whom to contact at the staff level to give Mr. Rose the type of information he was seeking. B. Revised Policies and Procedures for Joint Ci tg/Countg Revenue Sharing Fund for Social Services (memo distributed with Januarg 21 agenda) It is hoped that the revised procedures are adopted immediatelg since social service applications are alreadg being received. Mr. Murrag referred to service deliverg to other cities, interpreting that a Springfield resident would get. the level of service that would applg to the countg residents. e Anita Larsen, Human Resources Coordinator, said the commissioners have not considered the revised policg statement. It must be realized, she said, that the funds, even joint funds, are only a part of the agency's total budget. By review of the records and percentage of Springfield clients, it is recognized Eugene funds are not serving Springfield. To assure that, quarterly reports are generated listing the people served and their place of residence. Those reports are carefully monitored on an ongoing basis. Mr. Murray requested Council receive copies of those reports and also questioned the advantage of joint funds since the city of springfield does not participate. MS. Larsen said basically both the city and county would have to deal with each separate corporation, which could become quite . invol ved. It cuts down on the bureaucracy providing a deli very system in i coordination wi th county and state services. Knowledge of what is going on in the community would be lost, as well as coordination, without joint adm1nistration. Asst. Manager added it proved extremely detrimental when . each Jurisdiction was proceeding separately. .To know the county is committed ,is also helpful. Mr. Keller noted that Ms. Larsen does an incredible amoWlt of work for the subcommittee and it is appreciated. The work of that committee is well defined and there are no problems. He added too that Dr. BOyd Engelcke will be A, on the commi ttee starting February 9, replacing Hugh Johnston. .., Mr. Keller moved and it was seconded to adopt the revised policy and procedures for the Joint city/County Revenue Sharing Fund for Social Services. Mbtion carried unanimously. - 14 Comm 1/28/76 Approve 2/9/76 '1(P