CC Minutes - 11/21/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

B. Work Session: Social Services Dispersal Richie Weinman of the Planning and Development Department joined the council for the item. He noted that the item had been a subject of council discussion before. He requested council direction on the concept of social services dispersal. Mr. Weinman said social services tended to cluster together because of issues of service delivery. He asked the council if the City should adopt proscriptive or advisory policies to encourage or require the dispersal of social services, and what the desired outcome was. Mr. Weinman suggested that it was difficult to define a "social service," and asked if it was a matter of the service being provided or the source of funding. Further, some services were client-intensive, while others served clients via the telephone. Some services had numerous locations, and they moved functions around dependent on current needs and funding. Some services were identified with particular neighborhoods because that was where their clients were. In other cases, it did not matter where the service was located. Mr. Weinman pointed out that State land use law identifies group homes as an outright us and they cannot be regulated in residential areas. He questioned whether a dispersal policy would apply to services funded by government or to services privately provided. Mr. Weinman noted a map of services provided with funding by the Human Services Commission, which indicated a fair amount of dispersal had already occurred among those agencies. He circulated the map among councilors. He clarified that the map did not show all social service providers. Ms. Taylor opened the floor to questions. Mr. Meisner noted his long-term interest in the topic of social services dispersal because many affected neighborhoods were in his ward. He was not prepared to answer the question of whether the City should adopt a proscriptive process at this time. He called for continued analysis on the topic. Mr. Meisner said that continuing complaints he heard from constituents was that there was no process for them to offer input on the location of such a service, and that no one was listening to their concerns. He advocated for a process that allowed residents to express their concerns, and for policy development that came from that process. Mr. Weinman asked if a social services agency that received no public funds should be treated in the same manner as any other business. Mr. Meisner clarified he was interested in an examination of the impacts of such a use; he distinguished between the administrative offices of an agency, and a walk-in methadone clinic. He reiterated his interest in a process that allowed the neighbors and neighborhoods to be consulted. Ms. Bettman suggested that the ultimate solution would be proscriptive and regulatory in nature. She thought the City would have to consider zoning or conditional use approaches. She said that in many cases, such uses were less likely to locate where they were an allowed use and more likely to attempt to get an existing residence rezoned to office or clinic use, or locate in a mixed- use neighborhood where it was more easy to get approvals. She noted the City's work to preserve housing in the downtown area and to preserve neighborhood livability in the neighborhoods surrounding and supporting downtown. Part of making them liveable was to avoid the concentration of social services in the neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman wanted to see the City move forward with a process that took into account the input provided by neighbors and included a range of options for the council to consider. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 6 Work Session