Laserfiche WebLink
purposes," arguments in favor of the measure in the voters pamphlet regarding Ballot Measure 3 <br />emphasized drug treatment. He thought the voters were given a sense of the use of the funds by <br />those arguments. Mr. Kelly could not support the ordinance as it was drafted. He asked staff to <br />consider how Section 4.2555(3) could be revised if the council decided to spend the money on <br />drug treatment. <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Kelly's concerns, Mr. Rayor suggested the ordinance could be modified to read <br />"funds deposited in the General Fund goes for drug treatment unless otherwise directed." <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked how the money was tracked to ensure it was not directed to law enforcement. <br />Mr. Carlson said the accounting was similar to that used for the Road Fund. The State highway <br />gas tax money was placed in the City's General Fund and then staff determined if Eugene spent <br />enough on legal road-related activities to account for that amount of revenue. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor thought staff was on the right track in terms of the ordinance, and it was close to its <br />final form. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was willing to move forward with the ordinance as drafted if it did not preclude the <br />council from using the proceeds for drug treatment, and expressed appreciation for Mr. Kelly's <br />request for alternative wording. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that the problem with the budget <br />process was that funding comes to the council already allocated and the council must make <br />conscious decisions about reallocating those funds to other uses. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman requested a conservative estimate of the funding available if the council decided to <br />direct the funding to drug treatment, how the funds would be allocated, and the best use of those <br />dollars. Mr. Johnson said that a similar question was asked during the budget process. Staff had <br />some information, but as it indicated during the budget review, the County had the expertise in <br />alcohol and drug treatment, and the City had no one on staff with that expertise. Ms. Bettman <br />suggested that the City ask the County for the information. Mr. Carlson noted that some City's <br />funding was directed to drug treatment through the Human Services Commission. <br /> <br />Responding to remarks made regarding the budget process, Mr. Carlson said that all the revenue in <br />the General Fund was available for the council to allocate as it pleased. He said that while the City <br />Manager proposed a budget, he did not do so in a vacuum; staff listened to the council over the <br />course of the year and used that direction to formulate the budget. He noted that during the last <br />budget process, many changes were made by the Budget Committee. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> prepare the necessary information and to set a public hearing date in order to <br /> adopt the proposed ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner recalled that the motion that generated discussion at the Budget Committee was in <br />relationship to funding for the Drug Court, not drug treatment specifically. He questioned if, at a <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 2001 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />