03/11/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e marketing for the private sector. This has been reviewed with Ray McIver and Liz Cawood, as well as employees and contractors. The legal issues are long- term. Steve Bauer, League of Oregon Cities, has offered their assistance. On February 11, 1981, staff mentioned rearrangement of the program as an option, but now it is the only choice for the least disruptive impact. There is a need for a long-term solution. Ms. Wooten indicated that she has concerns and asked for clarification regarding maintaining the prime sponsorship. She asked if terminated non-profit PSE and private employees in Title VI will be picked up by other agencies. She also wanted to know how jobs will occur with termination of the contracts. Mr. Long responded that in order to meet the 60-day deadline they should rearrange the programs to meet the legal advice. Title lID and Title VI moneys are running out at just about the same time. The shutdown phase will coincide with the legal reorganization of the program. They can transfer participants to other public sector slots if possible, or to other programs, and if it can be done, it will. They can put the displaced homemakers into Title lIB from lID. They will be flexible whenever possible. Ms. Wooten asked if by discontinuing the program 45 days earlier than they had anticipated they will fit in with the government budget constraints. Mr. Long responded that that is correct for the non-profit sectors. Ms. Wooten asked how many jobs will be affected. Mr. Long stated that 20 jobs would be affected in Title lID and approximately 60 more by May 30 because of the fiscal cutbacks. Ms. Wooten asked how many jobs will be affected in the private sector. Mr. Long responded that it would only affect those participating in the Singer and Ingram programs. They will try to bring as many employees in-house as possible. Ms. Wooten stated that LCC and School District 4-J do not seem to be under the same legal restrictions. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney, stated that that is correct. The Constitution states that credit cannot be lent to private companies. The City would have been liable for how the money was spent. Public agencies do not have the same restraints. Ms. Wooten asked if the council would still be subject to a similar liability. Mr. Sercombe responded that they would not be for private groups, only for City actions. That is the same as it was previously. Now, however, we are not assuming liability for private corporations. Mr. Gleason noted that this would not impart itself onto the council. Ms. Wooten asked what kind of public explanation can be made why other prime sponsors are not responding as the City of Eugene is. Mr. Long responded that the State's position is similar to ours. The Portland attorney's office was offering similar advice but he has not yet seen it. Ms. Wooten asked what Lane County is doing. Mr. Sercombe stated that understands they are going to wait and see. Perhaps other jurisdictions are waiting to see what Eugene does. Mr. Gleason stated that one of the basic thrusts has been toward the private side and that will remain. CETA will still be constructive in helping with unemploy- ment. Staff appreciates the council IS efforts, particularly Councilor Wooten. They also appreciate the assistance of Congressman Weaver. The League of Oregon Cities is trying to resolve the constitutional problem. The legal staff has done all they can to relieve the council of their dilemma. However, clear direction is not being received from the national level. We will have a some- what smaller program, but it will still be to help people find jobs. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1981 Page 9