Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson noted that working poor were eligible for a variety of social service benefits. She <br />raised concern that adoption of the living wage ordinance at the expense of the local taxpayer <br />would shift the burden from State and federal social service agencies. Ms. Nathanson also raised <br />concern that such an ordinance would make local businesses less competitive in bidding for <br />contracts. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said there was a reduction in poverty in cities where a living wage ordinance had <br />been enacted. She remarked that there would only be a ripple effect on wages for those workers <br />who were within a dollar or two of the amount defined by the living wage ordinance. She noted <br />that every job that did not pay a living wage was publicly subsidized by social service agencies <br />that provided Iow cost housing, food and other necessities. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor suggested talking to other jurisdictions more about the issue. He raised concern with <br />mixing the issue with union bargaining units. He said that employees who had other recourse to <br />representation should be excluded. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey raised concern that a living wage ordinance would cause layoffs because the City <br />could not afford to pay for it. He said the layoffs would harm the very people that the ordinance <br />was meant to help because it would be lower level employees that would be laid off first. He <br />urged the council to be cautious of the consequences of its discussion. He raised concern that <br />too much talk over a living wage ordinance could hurt the chances of the State minimum wage <br />going up after the November election. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to direct the City Manager to return to <br /> the council, in time for inclusion in FY04 budget building, with draft options <br /> for a living wage ordinance. Options should be included for phased <br /> implementation, and for a trigger to pause future phases if the financial <br /> health of the City worsened. The City manager should also study the financial <br /> impacts of the options, and propose several different ways to fund such <br /> impact. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he supported moving forward with the motion. He stressed that moving forward <br />with the issue meant being able to answer difficult questions from the community. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner offered a friendly amendment, which was accepted as long as it did not adversely <br />impact the motion's timeline, to use the citizen members of the Budget Committee as a review <br />board to consider and develop options presented by staff. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson supported referring the matter to the Budget Committee. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor expressed a preference not to see the matter go through the Budget Committee. She <br />said that she would still vote for the motion but objected to the delay involved in referring it to the <br />Budget Committee. <br /> <br />In response to a question from City Manager Carlson regarding what items on the budget <br />committee work plan should be cut to pay for the living wage ordinance, Mr. Fart said the council <br />would want to hear his recommendations regarding cuts. He expressed his trust in Mr. Carlson to <br />make decisions. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously as amended. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 12, 2002 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />