Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/29/1984 Meeting - e e ~1INUTES Joint Eugene City Council/Private Industry Council Luncheon Meeting Eugene Conference Center, Hellman Room February 29, 1984 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, John Ball, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Joyce Nichols, Emily Schue. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Smith EPIC MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, liz Cawood, Connie Allen, Doug McKay, Pat Pooley, Jim Stephenson, Dorothy Chase, James Forbes, Ray McIver, Edie Shelton, Clifford Kaylor, John Ball, Jeffrey Lynn, Eldon Schafer, Bill VanOrmen, Rich Cook, Fred Jasmer, Sandra Rolene, Al Thompsen. The meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. ANNOUNCEMENT OF HULT CENTER TASK FORCE Mayor Keller nominated the following individuals to the task force to study the recommendations presented in the Hult Center management study performed by Alexander Grant & Company: City Councilors: Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, Richard Hansen Performing Arts Commission: Sally Westen, John Gregor Eugene Arts Foundations: John Alvord Local Arts Group Representative: Steve Caffery (ORT) Mr. Obie moved, seconded by ~ls. Wooten, to adopt the recommendation of the Mayor. The motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Keller reviewed the following charge to the task force: A. To make recommendations to the City Council on how to finance the Hult Center operations. Target date: Monday, April 2--Special City Council Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Council Chamber MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Private Industry Council February 29, 1984 Page 1 e B. To study how the City Council, Performing Arts Commission, Eugene Arts Foundation and local arts groups should relate to each other and the roles each should assume to effectively carry out the new financing strategy. Target date: June 30 Mayor Keller announced that the task force will hold a pubic heering on March 5 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber to listen to public input on these issues. He stated that other meetings will be scheduled as necessary. He asked that Mr. Obie chair the task force and Ms. Wooten serve as vice chair. II. DISCUSSION OF PARTNERSHIP (background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason presented the staff report, briefly describing the history and the relationship between the City of Eugene and the Private Industry Council. He stated that he appreciated the work of Mr. Pryor and the other EPIC members. e Chris Pryor, President of the EPIC, voiced his appreciation for those in atten- dance. He said one of the reasons for the meeting was a discussion of the partnership role that the EPIC has with the City Council. In achieving its goal, he said the EPIC wants to maintain a close link with the council. He reviewed the agenda for the meeting and, referring to the EPIC mememorandum of February 24, 1984, to the City Council, stated that the matrix in the memorandum described the responsibility and actions of the involved players: the City Council, the EPIC, the EPIC President, and the Executive Committee of the EPIC. He reviewed the matrix system which indicated the actions of the individual players, stating that the matrix was being presented to the council and the EPIC for their reaction and input. He noted that equal capacity was given to the council whenever the full EPIC was given the capacity to act. He explained that the EPIC was now a more autonomous partner with the City Council as opposed to being an advisory group as in the past. Ms. Hooten asked how the matrix served to provide the council with the informa- tion necessary for the coordination of activities. Mr. Pryor stated that the Employment Training Program is linked with economic development and that the Eugene Development Department provides the staffing under the Job Center ~'anager to operate that program. In addition, he stated that two members of the EPIC serve on the City's BATeam. In response to another question by Ms. Wooten, Mr. Pryor stated that job training priorities are based on economic development projections and local/state employment estimates. He said the program attempts to be market driven and to resond to the reaction from the community. Mr. Beyer stated that the program operates on the economic development sphere at two levels: attempting to target where the jobs will be, and training employees for incoming as well as existing industries. He stated that the other member of the Development Department staff often reference employment training as part of their business contacts. Mr. Pryor commented that the program attempts to anticipate the industries in order to attract industries into the area and to provide a good environment for industry. e ~1INUTES--Eugene City Council/Private Industry Council February 29, 1984 Page 2 e Mr. Ball commented that the proposed level of involvement for the EPIC on an annual basis reflects the changes in the legislation governing the new Job Training Program, one of the intents of the legislation being to more greatly involve the private sector. He said it has been interesting to observe the private sector during the transition. He said the EPIC has picked up the intent of the federal legislation at the local level. John Porter of the Eugene Development Department stated that the major area for the council will be the budget and long-range program recommendations, with much of the mechanical work being performed by smaller committees within the EPIC. Mr. Pryor, added that his observation has been that government agencies disburse funds to the actual operating organizations, but they are rarely involved in the planning process. He stated that Eugene is considered to be a model program due to the relationship between the private and public sectors--one of the primary reasons for the meeting. e Mr. VanOrman asked what the council wanted to have in the manner of information from the EPIC. In response to a question, Mr. VanOrman briefly explained the role of the PARS (Performance Review) committee of the EPIC. Ms. Wooten stated that she wanted to know what efforts were being made to coordinate the Job Training Program with the needs of local industries and those relocating to the Eugene area. She also asked how the program anticipated the needs of the industries and how it responded to those needs. Mr. McIver felt that the research study conducted by Marstat, with its evaluation of the EPIC and its users, would be helpful in addressing that issue. He noted that the study was a backward look and does not necessarily reflect the direction of the EPIC in the future. He stated that the document includes vital information for the council, including the reasoning behind the matrix currently proposed. In response to a previous question on the Dislocated Worker Program, Mr. Stephenson stated that he has worked with the program. He stated that approximately 130 individuals are currently in the program, having already placed 30 persons in positions with an average wage of $7.00 per hour. He said the salary range is from $40,000 per year to the minimum wage level. III. DISCUSSION OF SERVICE DELIVERY AREA (SDA) MERGER ACTIVITY Mr. Pryor briefly desribed the potential merger of the present two SOAs into a Metropolitan Eugene/Springfield portion and a balance of Lane County. He stated that the EPIC discussed the City's objectives with representatives from the Lane County program, stating that the members of the two PICs have achieved good accord on agreements, desires and motivations to combine the two programs. In addition, he stated that three formal meetings between the two PICs have been held, both groups having discussed their own objectives from which a combined list of objectives have been developed. He stated that he has discussed the potential layout and design for the merger with Mr. Gleason and the need to involve the City of Springfield. Also discussed were the concepts of incorpora- tion and a 190 agreement. He stated that five of the eight SDAs in Oregon are incorporated. He stated his desire to obtain feedback from the council on the document for the proposed merger. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Private Industry Council February 29. 1984 Page 3 e e e In response to a question, Mr. Pryor explained that an incorporation would allow the program to become a non-profit entity linked to the intergovernmental agencies but more or less freestanding. While the advantages of incorporation include allowing the entity to perform internal and external functions, he stated that some liabilities would include the need to purchase insurance and the potential for removing the close link between the agencies. Mr. Pryor explained that an intergovermental 190 agreement would require the three local governments to form a contract to establish a board which would administer the terms of the contract. He said the board would equally represent the three governmental agencies although the fundings might be allocated on a formula basis. The administrative board would also be the program administrator, reporting to the three agencies. In regard to staffing, Mr. Pryor reviewed the current staffing under Mr. Beyer and stated that a major question would be the level of sufficient staffing for the proposed SOA. Ms. Shelton commented that the Multnomah County PIC requested its Chamber of Commerce to take over the staffing and to contract the training. She said the Chamber of Commerce will make money from this arrangement. Mr. Pryor stated that one argument for incorporation is that internal staffing can be reduced by contracting work out. While this can also be done under the 190 agreement, he said that the real issues are: not reinventing the wheel, all the governmental agencies obtaining their fair share, and that all the concerns are properly addressed. In response to a question, Mr. Pryor stated that the Eugene/Springfield areas would comprise the metropolitan area while the rest of Lane County would fall under the "rural" definition. He said the proposed PIC would have representatives from each of the three PIC to ensure a true and balanced representation. Mr. Forbes commented that much time has been spent on discussing what the EPIC wants to achieve, the benefits and drawbacks of each existing SOA and how the ideal SOA would appear. He felt that it was a misnomer to get too involved in the mechanism at this meeting because the EPIC was already going through that process. Mr. Schafer suggested that staff develop a position paper which outlines the similarities and differences of the PICs at the present time. He said he was impressed with the good will generated by both PICs and the staff. He said a need exists to move on with the process. In response to Mr. Pryor's request for feedback on the proposed SOA merger, Ms. Schue stated that not much choice exists under the current federal legisla- tion. She said it was clear that the merger will eventually occur and that many good reasons existed in support of the merger. She said the actual debate is how the agencies should merge to achieve the goals set by each. Mr. Pryor stated that some flexibility has been given by the Governor in regard to the merger. Mr. Beyer stated that the City has at least another year in which to accomplish the merger. Mr. Gleason added that the Governor must certify to the federal government that the SOA is meeting the needs of the communities. While some concern existed with the area to the north having three SOAs, he said the situation is different than that of Eugene and Springfield. He said the Eugene model can be used for planning, economic development or other projects--the three governments being partners. He stressed that the opportunity which exists would be the driver of the program. MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Private Industry Council February 29, 1984 Page 4 -- e -- Ms. Hooten stated that she generally supports the proposal merger, stating that it makes sense to approach the program as a metropolitan labor pool. She stated that she does not want the merged program to be an independent corporation, adding that she would prefer an intergovernmental agreement to maintain efficiency in the operation and to maintain a bond of accountability. She stressed that she would not support a merger except as an intergovernmental agreement. Mr. Obie added that the City views the available training funds as essential to the balance of its economic development efforts and the flexibility and ongoing communication relative to those funds as important to economic diversification. He said an autonomous organization working outside the City would raise several concerns. He encouraged the EPIC to study the merger in terms of an intergovernmental agreement and maintaining a proper role in the present effort by the City in economic diversification. He felt a real problem in the metropolitan is the number of players involved in that effort. He stressed that all the players must work toward the common objectives of the community. Mr. Pryor commented that Lane County also has an economic develop- ment agenda, although it is broader than the concerns of the metropolitan area. Mr. Gleason, while qualifying that he could not speak for the City of Springfield, stating that the sentiments expressed by Councilors Hooten and Obie would be favorably considered by Springfield. He felt Springfield was comfortable with the present pattern, but he stressed that the council should directly the ask the City of Springfield to voice its opinions. Ms. Cawood said she felt the Metropolitan Team has a well developed economic development program. She did not feel the intent of an incorporated entity would be to operate separately from that process. However, she said that one area not addressed was the individual communities within the county. She believed that an intergovernmental agreement would not address the interests of those communities. Mr. Forbes believed that each PIC was aware of the issues of the other group. He did not want to eliminate any options in the negotiation process. He suggested that the joint committee prove to the EPIC and the City Council that the proposed merger would meet the needs of the respective gagencies and involved groups. Ms. Schue agreed that the process must be done on a rational basis with the benefits of the plan being considered. As a member of the council, she said she agreed with the comments of r~s. Wooten and ~1r. Obie that the council has the experience in various types of organizations from which some conclusions have been reached. While it would be easier to coordinate fewer players in an organization, she said an independent entity would have more organizational difficul ties. Mayor Keller also stated he would support the comments of Mr. Obie and Ms. Hooten. He said he would not support any vehicle which would not achieve the goals jointly shared by the involved groups. He stressed that during the past three years there has not been any City project which was solely a department project, explaining that all the players have been involved. Mr. Forbes responded that he did not have any agenda for the merger and would support any operable organization. He hoped that no limitations would be placed on the merger. MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Private Industry Council February 29, 1984 Page 5 - e - Ms. Wooten said the council was sincere in its statements on intergovernmental cooperation and economic development/diversification. She said the council could also be sensitive in incorporating the needs of the other Lane County communities as part of the county-wide diversification and training matrix. She felt strongly that the intergovernmental agreement was needed for operation of the program. Mr. Schafer stated that the EPIC had agreed in previous meetings that a certain amount of trust must exist on all sides. He felt that this trust had not existed on the part of the council for broadening the scope of one SOA or PIC. He said the EPIC did not see any personal loss in the proposed merger. He said a problem would exist if the City was not willing to accept the merger on good faith or to be fliexible in the merger negotiations. Ms. Pooley, as a member of both the Eugene and Lane County PICs, said she felt that individuals on both PICs wanted to merge. She said it was her understanding that the ties to all the governmental agencies would still exist even if the SDAs were incorporated. She said she had some difficulty with the direction being given by the council. Mayor Keller responded that it was important to understand the history behind the split between the PICs, stating that program directions and the need for the City to operate at proper levels of mandates were two reasons for the split. He felt that definite directions existed for the PICs to perform to standards and the City did not want anything less than the program already established by the EPIC. Ms. Pooley said she was not dealing with any past history. She felt the City Council must assume that both PICs were operating in good faith and wanted to relate to the governments serving the people. Mr. Pryor said the EPIC was operating in good faith but was also setting certain ground rules. He said that no program was meant to cheat either side. Ms. Pooley said she still had a problem with the council eliminat- ing one of the merger options. Mr. McIver stated that he had discussed incorporation because other PICs had done so. He felt it was a shame that so much time was being spent on the issue because the EPIC did not have any serious considerations for that option. He commented that some PICs which had incorporated had leveraged their funds by donations. As a person in the private sector, he felt the possibility of incorporation must be studied based on possible funding advantages. Ms. Schue agreed, stating that the council was known to change its mind on occasion. She said the present meeting was held to provide the EPIC with the feelings of the council. She commented that the program was good and that it had performed well in the past. She stressed that the City did not want to lose what it had achieved, especially since the program tied in with the council IS goal of economic development and the City's relationship with Springfield. She said it was important for the EPIC to understand the feelings of the council. Mr. Pryor said the EPIC was currently in the information-gathering stage and was not committed to anyone program design. He said that all options were being considered and the council's input was desired as part of the process. MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Private Industry Council February 29, 1984 Page 6 e e e Ms. Schue commented that the concerns expressed by Ms. Cawood were real and must be considered. She said the council was sensitive to concerns of the communities and that this issue must be considered. She said she was confident that a solution could be achieved. Ms. Cawood, referring to the City of Eugene SDA objectives, asked if the City Council had any preference for which member government would be designated as the administrative agent for the PIC/SDA as outlined in Objective 7. Mr. Pryor asked if the council had any agendas for the member government. Ms. Wooten said she had no preference, although she had hoped that Lane County would have taken a larger role in the past few years as a coordinating body for economic develop- ment in the county. She said she worried about the level of resources available to do the job. Mayor Keller felt the question would be answered by policy and planning before the member government was chosen. He stated that he had no preference to the member government chosen. Mr. Holmer commented that he was maintaining flexibility on the various issues and was waiting for any advice which the EPIC provided. Mr. Obie stated that it was important how the program dovetails with other programs and the Metro Team. He felt that close coordi- nation with the Metro Team was important to ensure the interests of the other county communities. IV. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Ball. commenting that he was on both the City Counci.1 and the EPIC, stated that some of the often slighted purposes of the Job Training Act included hard to serve populations and rural areas and communities that fell outside the ~ain focus of attention. While he was pleased with the general direction taken, he felt the EPIC and the City Council must have a program broad enough to address all the concerns. ~1ayor Keller stated that he was not ready to buy the "equal representation" proposal for the merger because the responsibility was not equal. He said an historical problem was that the justification for having a metropolitan area was often job creation for those individuals in the outlying areas of Eugene and Springfield. He was not sure that equal representation was appropriate in this situation. Mr. Ball felt the City Council had addressed that issue in adopting its SDA objectives. He said that it fell into that area where good faith could be used to address those issues. He felt the City Council and the EPIC had left themselves flexibility to deal with that and other issues. In response to a question, Mr. Pryor stated that equal representation in its basis sense meant that the three governmental players would have equal size or numbers, although the term could be defined differently. He said it was a working definition and thus far meant each group having one-third of the repre- sentation as a gesture toward equality. Ms. Cawood stated that the EPIC had also discussed establishing an advisory council for the rural populations which would have its own separate program and funding for allocation on a population basis. She said the composition of the representation had not been finalized and that various options were being considered. Mr. Cook said the EPIC had no recommendation on representation at that point in time when discussing the advisory council. He said the 7-7-7 issue was raised and it was suggested MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Private Industry Council February 29, 1984 Page 7 e e e that population be used as a method of determining representation. He said the EPIC had decided to deal with that issue at a later time. He said he had not felt any sense of commitment by the EPIC to one type of composition over another. Mr. Pryor commented that the composition of the SOA may be an issue to be determined by the council when it meets with the Springfield City Council and the Lane Council Board of Commissioners. Mr. Gleason briefly reviewed the terms of SDA, Program Administrator, Program Providers, and PICs. He said the federal government had defined the terms but not the connection between the separate groups. He said the natural tendency was to develop a format for agendas such as has been done by the City Council. However, he said the issue of economic development would be decided by the individuals residing within the urban growth boundary. He said that the Cities of Eugene and Springfield had found that creating a new entity developed problems related to integration. He said the City Council has stressed that these problems must not be reinforced so that the metropolitan area and the programs such as sewers, fire, 911, courts can be integrated. He stressed that the City did not want to go back to any of the problems that had existed. Mr. Cook explained that the EPIC could incorporate as a PIC and still maintain the same system delivery and grant recipients. Mr. Gleason stated that the relationship with the City Council and governments in the future would be different. In an incorporated environment, he said the PIC would act indepen- dently if agreement was not reached with the government agencies. Mr. Beyer described the situation which existed in New York City with its three incoporated PICs, each claiming to be the primary PIC for the city. He said the real problem existed with the intergovernmental agreement tying the PIC to traditional governmental agencies. He explained that a non-profit agency exists on its own and cannot be eliminated unless that board chooses to do so. Mr. Forbes suggested that another term could be used which would not raise such concerns. He hoped that the two groups would remain open to any rationale and cost-saving program. Mayor Keller said the council has tried to be responsive and that the council will listen to any presentation from the EPIC. He thanked those present for their participation. The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 77~?~~ Mi c'a~7;f.~-- . City Manager (Recorded by Thorn Strunk) TS: cj /CM23a13 - MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Private Industry Council February 29, 1984 Page 8