CC Minutes - 01/29/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

three years was precisely the amount being spent by the City on homeless services. Mr. Meisner said that the Police Department and other City departments put significant money toward social services. He acknowledged the need for more funding, but said that until the expenditure was discussed in the context of the City's other goals, he was not prepared to support an increase. Ms. Solomon concurred with Mr. Meisner. She also wanted a broader discussion before the Budget Committee began to identify impacts in the budget. Ms. Bettman noted that in arguing against the proposal for a living wage, several councilors had suggested there was a need for other poverty reduction strategies to alleviate the conditions of the working poor. She suggested that the motion was an opportunity for councilors to put their "money where your mouth is." She pointed out that the motion merely gave the Budget Committee the opportunity to identify strategies councilors believed were better than the living wage proposal. Ms. Nathanson did not want to circumvent the budget process that had just started. She pointed out that if the council was to have a full discussion of poverty-reduction strategies, it would require many work sessions. She said that although it looked on its face as though it was the right thing to do, she would exercise restraint and vote against the motion, and wait for the council goals session and completion of the budget process. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the topic of the motion was appropriate for the goals setting session. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that the council needed to put its money were its mouth was, but given the budget reductions that were anticipated, he thought "we're beyond that." He suggested the issue be delayed to the next budget year. Mr. Carlson noted that Mr. Pap8 had no conflict of interest as it regarded the item under consideration. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that the base budget contain no reduction in the City's contribution to the human services service area. Mr. Meisner indicated opposition to the motion. Ms. Nathanson said that but for the fact the process presupposed the budget process, she would have voted yes on the motion. She hoped the manager could find a way to demonstrate to the Budget Committee the City's expenditures on social and human services generally. Mr. Kelly said that as part of the budget process, he was attempting to supplement the Budget Committee's direction to the City Manager in one area of 37 General Fund services. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2003 Page 10 Work Session