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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to exempt anyone from the motion who was not a direct City employee. Ms. Bettman indicated opposition to the amendment. She said that the City spent considerable money on job creation; it was a focus of its economic development policies. It made no sense to her that the City created jobs that did not pay enough money for people to purchase basic living needs. She noted that Food for Lane County indicated that any job paying less than $9.50 per hour for a single person required supplemental social services. The City was enabling a cycle of poverty by creating jobs that did not provide a living wage, and then had to spend money on social services to support the underpaid. She believed that the council had to justify its expenditures on incentives and tax breaks by ensuring that the public money provided living wage jobs. The living wage ordinance was one way to do so, and the amendment negated it. Mr. Kelly also opposed the amendment. He believed as modified by the amendment, the motion would apply to only 10 to 20 employees. He suggested that another result of the amendment would be that City employers could eventually be converted into contractors. Ms. Nathanson indicated opposition to the amendment. She said that as she worked through the possible exclusions to the ordinance and potential triggers for a phased implementation, the issue got very complicated. She said that once she attempted to make all the details work, the concept became internally inconsistent, pointing to the problems with the living wage as a solution to address poverty. Ms. Taylor also opposed the amendment for the reasons previously stated. She said that the City had already privatized some former City services, which was a means of reducing wages. Mayor Torrey indicated support for the amendment. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's comments regarding the position taken by AFSCME, he said that unions supported the living wage measure because it reduced the potential of privatization, making them better able to compete more effectively with outside contractors when privatization was contemplated. He said that he did not want to eliminate the City's work force, but questioned why the council would stand in the way of more efficient service delivery by increasing the costs of providing services, which was of deep concern to the voters. He said that he would be interested in seeing a letter from AFSCME that the issue was not related to privatization. The amendment to the motion failed, 7:0. Ms. Bettman said that the living wage enjoyed support beyond that of the unions. She noted letters of support received from legislators Phil Barnhart, Pat Fart, Al King, former Senator Susan Castillo, and senators Tony Corcoran, Vicki Walker, and Bill Morissette. Mr. Poling pointed out that even during the more prosperous 1990s, local governments were cutting their budgets. He was not able to foretell better economic times in 2005 than in 1995, and did not think it feasible to plan to spend money now that the council did not know would be available in the future. Ms. Nathanson said the City was spending down its fiscal reserves and would shortly be in deficit. She questioned how phasing in the living wage over time helped financially. She had wanted assurances there would be no job losses or service reductions as a result of its adoption. Ms. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2003 Page 8 Work Session