Laserfiche WebLink
conditions for vulnerable people. Mr. Clark endorsed recommendations that provided people with <br />avenues for greater dignity, and cited day centers that provided storage, showers, and laundry facilities as <br />an example. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr was excited about the possibility of establishing a homeless commission. He also advocated for <br />early action on what he considered the recommendations easiest to accomplish, such as the addition of <br />bathroom facilities and rezoning the Eugene Mission. He acknowledged that it would take the council <br />longer to work through some of the other task force recommendations. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown envisioned that Eugene would need multiple homeless encampment sites to serve different <br />homeless populations. He said that Dignity Village was considered transitional housing that fell under <br />State of Oregon building codes governing campgrounds, which provided the camp with legal zoning <br />status. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested the possibility the City could use empty jail beds for temporary shelter. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling questioned how creating a homeless camp helped address the issue of homelessness. He <br />suggested the City should focus on those who were homeless for reasons beyond their control. He asked <br />staff to quantify the cost of the task force recommendation and wanted to know where the needed funding <br />would come from. <br /> <br /> <br />B. WORK SESSION: <br />Council Committee on Human Service Funding Recommendations <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor led the council through a PowerPoint presentation entitled Council Subcommittee on Human <br />Services Funding. The presentation described the differing service levels and range of funding <br />mechanisms discussed by subcommittee members, which included Mr. Pryor, Mr. Brown, Ms. Ortiz, and <br />Mr. Farr, and foreshadowed the potential of a regional approach with regional funding. Mr. Pryor <br />highlighted the subcommittee’s recommendations for ongoing human services funding and shared the <br />preliminary revenue estimates from a utility consumption tax and monthly public service fee. He asked <br />the council to discuss whether the City should pursue a new revenue source, and if yes, to consider what <br />needs were funded, funding mechanisms, and the timing and duration of such a tax or fee. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Poling encouraged early discussion with the Eugene Water & Electric Board, the <br />agency that might potentially collect a City utility consumption tax. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown called for more information about the financial impact of ending the Riverfront Research <br />District so the City could use the revenues from the district to support human services. <br />Mr. Poling expressed concern about the increased demand on City resources when other local <br />governments began to reduce their contributions to human services and questioned how the agencies that <br />were provided with additional funding by the City would distinguish between City and non-City <br />residents. He advocated for a public vote on any new taxing source. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark believed human services funding was a countywide issue that required a countywide solution. <br />He questioned asking Eugene residents to support a new tax in the current economic environment. He <br />said increasing the tax base would help support human services, and tied that issue to the decisions the <br />council faced regarding expansion of the urban growth boundary. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2012 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />