Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/26/1980 Meeting e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL March 26, 1980 Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller, at 11:45 a.m., March 26, 1980, with the following councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Eric Haws, Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, and Jack Delay. Councilor D. W. Hamel was absent. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS Mayor Keller noted that today's meeting is being conducted with the revised agenda, not the original. A. Mr. Obie referred to a memo which had gone to Mayor Keller and the councilors regarding a proposal affecting 25 non-conforming use mobile homes. In the past, mobile homes have been treated as non-conforming uses of land and could not be rented or resold. Replacement of these mobile homes is expensive, and it also works against the objective of low-cost housing. He urged the council to refer this matter to the Planning Commission and to consider a code amendment that would eliminate the restrictions regarding resale and rental. ~ Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to refer this memo's contents to the Planning Commission. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Mr. Haws stated he would not be present at the April 14 council meeting. C. Ms. Smith referred to the National League of Cities memo highlights. She stated the meeting had been very successful and they had the opportunity to meet with the congressional delegation. They also had the opportunity to give input to the Energy and Environmental Quality Natural Resources Committee. Originally, funding of treatment plants was not to be high priority with this committee, but with the input they were able to give, they were able to maintain this issue and identify it as a high-priority item. They also had the opportunity to speak in favor of revenue sharing. The information they received is that State revenue sharing may be in trouble, but our congressional delegation is hopeful that they can continue to support City revenue sharing. Due to budget cuts, the CETA and Community Development Block Grant programs may be in jeopardy this next fiscal year, and they conveyed their concerns for Eugene and for the State of Oregon. e 3/26/80--1 D. Wastewater Treatment--Ms. Smith stated that regarding the letter from Mr. Sawyer, funds for wastewater treatment will be frozen. The commission is actively pursuing release of some of those funds, since 4It the City's facilities are under construction. E. [PAC Commission--Mr. Lieuallen requested that the amendment to the EPAC ordinance changing the number of members be brought back at the April 2 meeting. F. Metropolitan Area Transportation Committee--Ms. Miller stated that the Metropolitan Area Transportation Committee is working on transportation efficiency and transportation energy curtailment plans. More informa- tion is available in the first draft of the report regarding approaches to regional energy conservation and what to do in a serious fuel curtailment crisis. The committee is talking about going back to the Legislature for authorization legislation for an inspection and maintenance program. G. Vehicle Inspection-Maintenance Program--Councilor Miller indicated that the Metropolitan Area Transportation Committee is considering requesting the L-COG staff to work with DEQ, Motor Vehicles Division, Lane County, and the City of Springfield in order to develop appro- priate enabling State legislation and budget appropriation needs. She indicated that she will assume this course of action is agreeable to the council unless she heard differently from them. H. Labor Council Memo Regardin~ CETA Proposal--Mayor Keller stated that a letter from the Labor Councll stating opposition to setting up any separate or additional CETA bureaucracy for servicing CETA clients in Lane County had been received. e I. League of Ore~on Cities Meeting--Mr. Allen stated he had received a flier lndicatlng that the regional League of Oregon Cities meeting would be held in Cottage Grove on April 15 at 2 p.m. and he would like to receive responses from anyone who would be attending by Wednesday, April 2. II. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980-81 Mr. Allen stated that Christina Hofmann and Mike Tharp, HCC, were available for presenting background on this item. He stated this item had previously been.given a public hearing. Mr. Delay stated he had missed the public hearing as he had thought March 26 was when this item would be discussed and was out of town on March 24. He said that it is a difficult task to determine which projects are funded as there are limited funds and numerous neighborhood projects. Different and new criteria were implemented this year to help people become better e 3/26/80--2 e able to improve their applications for grant funding. More and more different groups are requesting funding. He felt the council could consider expanding community development funds by adding general fund monies. This program is good for citizen participation, neighborhoods, and the City. Mr. Obie asked, if Community Development Block Grant funding is reduced in the next two years, what would happen to the neighborhoods that have not been helped? Mr. Delay responded that it would be up to the council whether the program must terminate or be funded through another mechanism. He expressed regrets that some neighborhoods have been excluded from the process. He further stated this could be included in a supplemental budget. Mr. Obie asked if there was any consideration this year to try to spread those monies further. Mr. Delay responded that a large number of neighborhoods are ineligible and there are primary, secondary, and third priority levels. Those are determined on the basis of planning data, block group data, income levels, and level of deterioration in the neigh- borhood. The overall committee policy has been basically the same since the program began. Funds are so limited and spreading out the monies evenly would dilute the effect. The emphasis has been to focus primarily on one. specific neighborhood per year. First was Westside Neighborhood, then Whiteaker, West University was third, and Far West will be next. This has been done to produce observable changes so that private invest- ment will be stimulated. - Mr. Obie mentioned, in regard to Project 3B--Neighborhood Housing Resource Center for $18,000--that it is outlined that staff will be provided to look at methods to prevent low- and moderate-income displacement. He would like to know where this position will be. Ms. Hofmann responded it is now with the non-profit Willamette Community Design Center. One objective would be to research alternative design possibilities; another is to look at the problem of displacement. Mr. Obie then asked, in regard to outreach staffing for $33,000, what those staff members do. Ms. Hofmann responded that they are liaison workers between neighborhood residents and City staff to complete the funded projects. For example, the liaison could put together a committee and work with City staff to make sure that bills were paid. Mr. Obie then asked for clarification on Item III-P, Weatherization Loans for $7,000, with zero-percent interest. He asked if this was a new program and how one would qualify for the program. Ms. Hofmann stated this is being tried as an experiment in the West University Neighborhood with investor-owners. This gives them an additional incentive to use the State weatherization program. Mr. Obie then asked if qualifying standards have been estab- lished. Ms. Hofmann responded that there were none at this point. Ms. Smith stated she had a question regarding a project raised at the March 24 public hearing--that of lighting for the Fairmount Neighborhood. She asked why it was not funded. Ms. Hofmann stated the project was not included because Public Works is unable to undertake any more lighting e 3/26/80--3 projects because of energy costs. The problem was not with installation costs; rather, it was one of maintenance. Mr. Allen said that the City Manager's Office and the Public Works Department are concerned about ~ whether existing lighting projects will need to be cut back. .., Mr. Obie then asked, in regard to Project 4-L, a $15,000 continuing Whiteaker youth outreach project, what results have been accomplished and how this project will carryon if these funds are discontinued. Ms. Hofmann responded that the youth worker basically provides recreational opportunities for youth. Information and referral services also are provided, especially in regard to employment. Continuation is considered for all projects; and this is the third year of this project and the plan is to develop resources for continuation. Mr. Obie stated that the deadline is March 28 and he has some concerns, since this is a $1.376-mi1lion project. He feels it is poor organization on the part of the council to be considering this application at such a late date. A better plan must be developed for getting the information sooner so they can better understand and review the issues. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve Community Development Block Grant application as submitted. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of Council Minutes of February 27, March 5, March 10, and March 12, 1980 - Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieual1en, to approve council minutes of February 27, March 5, March 10, and March 12, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Improvement Petitions Mr. Allen stated that both of the improvement petitions to be discussed were routine matters. 1. Danebo Industrial Park Res. No. 3334--A resolution authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer construction within and adjacent to Danebo Industrial Park (1784) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the resolution be adopted. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 2. Bell Avenue Res. No. 3335--A resolution authorizing street paving on Bell Avenue from Berntzen Road to Louis Street (1850) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Obie out of the chamber at the time. e 3/26/80--4 e IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Supplemental Budget (memo and ordinance distributed)--Mr. Allen stated that this is a supplemental budget and it has had one public hearing. Public hearing was opened. There being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2105--An ordinance adopting a supplemental budget; making appro- priations for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1979, and ending June 30, 1980; and declaring an emergency Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Obie out of the chamber. The bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voted aye, with Mr. Obie out of the chamber, and the bill was declared passed and numbered 18608. e B. New Liquor License Outlet: Pietro's Gold Cost Pizza Parlour (Retail Malt Beverage); Located 3540 West 11th; applicant: Pietro.s Corporation-- Mr. Allen stated this is a new outlet and everything is in order and approval is recommended. Public hearing was opened. There being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to forward to OLCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Obie out of the chamber. V. ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING A. Easement Vacation for Abarr, Hanamura, Spear, and Streede (EV 79-1)-- Mr. Allen stated the required fees had been collected and final approval is recommended. CB 1913--An ordinance authorizing easement vacation located between Parliament Street and Cornell Way e 3/26/80--5 Ms. Smith moved~ seconded by Mr. Lieuallen~ that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors ~ present voted aye~ with Mr. Obie out of the chamber~ and the bill .., was declared passed and numbered 18609. VI. j EWEB FACILITIES AGREEMENTS (memo distributed) Mr. Allen stated that both of these agreements are in order and approval is recommended. Res. No. 3336--A resolution authorizing the City Manager to grant EWEB a right-of-way and access permit on City property located at 450 North Fillmore Street for utility services Ms. Smith moved~ seconded by Mr. Lieuallen~ to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 3337--A resolution authorizing the City Manager to grant EWEB a right-of-way and access permit on City property located at Mahlon Sweet Airport for utility services Ms. Smith moved~ seconded by Mr. Lieuallen~ to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VII. CETA CONSORTIUM/PRIME SPONSOR OPTIONS (memo distributed) e Mr. Allen introduced Gary Long~ Special Staff Services Director~ to give background information. Mr. Long stated the staff memorandum outlined several options and recom- mendations for forming a City-County consortium board for the CETA program. Certain services would be provided by the City and the County separately. Intake~ placement~ and certain private-sector programs would be handled by joint contracting arrangements; a small administrative staff is proposed and could be housed with either the County or the City. This consortium proposal does not have the support of the Lane County staff and mayor may not be accepted by the Lane County Commissioners. If the council adopts the recommended course of action~ but Lane County fails to concur~ then the staff recommends that two cooperative but independent prime sponsors be formed. The staff recommendation is based on an analysis of the current Lane County program (Attachments D and E of staff memorandum). Attachments A through C are summaries of the pros and cons of the various options. Staff recommendation is made in the belief that it will improve efficiency~ improve participation results~ and reduce costs. They are proposing~ if the City becomes directly involved in CETA service delivery~ that the approach be through competitive bid and contracting processes. As indicated in this e 3/26/80--6 e memo, Lane County's performance ranks at average or lower than average with regard to service delivery. Funding volume involved is $14 million, the City's portion is approximately $4 million. It is felt that it would be better to have two separate programs than joint liability in another organization. In regard to competitive bidding, the hope is to improve service delivery to target groups. There is also the question of residency and its impact with regard to each of the choices presented. A consortium is recommended rather than prime sponsorship. The residency issue will not go away, no matter which option is chosen. There is quite a bit of flexibility either with the consortium or as a prime sponsor. Reciprocal arrangements can be made to reduce hardships to employers or to applicants. There have been questions raised as to the accuracy of the Staff report statistics. They have double checked and staff believes that the informa- tion is accurate. April 7 is the deadline for consorting with Lane County or filing an intent to consort. By this date, a letter outlining intent and some basic elements of the consortium relationship must arrive in Seattle. e Mr. Obie asked how Chart IB in Attachment 0 is to be read. Randy Miller, CETA Program Manager for the City, responded that the first column is actual performance, the second column is the planned performance, and the third column is a comparison. The rating is from top to bottom and Lane County is at the very bottom. This concerns Title. lIB, training for 10ng- term unemployed with no skills, and the number of these individuals who enter the job market after the CETA position is terminated. Mr. Lieuallen asked if Option B is recommended rather than Option C. Mr. Long responded that Option B is recommended by City staff but the County feels Option C would be best. Mr. Lieua11en asked if the defects that the City staff sees in the options are a difference in service delivery and a difference in administrative approach. He asked if identif- ication of trainers and target populations would be contracted out. Mr. Long responded that many of the services could be contracted out. Mr. Lieua11en asked if the County provides these services in-house. Mr. Long responded yes, it has been, as Lane County does not feel contracting would provide them with sufficient control. Mr. Lieuallen asked how City staff responded to the issues of control. Mr. Long replied he views accountability as being good management regardless of whether it is contract management or staff supervision. Mr. Lieua11en asked how Mr. Long sees the residency situation. Mr. Long responded that Federal regulations require that monies be allocated to city and county residents in proportionate amounts. Mr. Lieuallen asked if residency would continue to be a problem. Mr. Long responded that the residency situation, regardless of the option chosen, must be managed much as it is now. City money goes to city residents and County money goes to county residents. Positions can be swapped between the two or a pool of money can be set up. Mr. Lieual1en asked if City policy might be ignored in a consortium arrangement. Mr. Long responded that it has been very diff- icult at the present time, especially in the PSE program, to get the necessary attention regarding City concerns. It has been a problem since the City e 3/26/80--7 has become a program agent. Under Option C, there would be a liaison person to deal with situations such as this. Mr. Lieuallen asked for an example of a case where City policy is being thwarted. Mr. Long stated that they are proposing that as much money as possible be diverted to the Eugene Summer program; it has high priority for the City. This liaison .would work with the performing arts and the people involved in Eugene Summer. Mr. Lieuallen stated that Mr. Long is missing the point. Mr. Lieuallen asked him to identify a policy goal which the City has where there might be a conflict. Ms. Smith stated that she does not want to have a situation where due to CETA conflicts this negatively affects other inter-governmental relationships. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the City is at cross purposes with the County in regard to Eugene Summer, Mr. Long responded that he had been told that most proposals in regard to Eugene Summer had been denied by Lane County. The City was hoping to get a higher priority on this project. Mr. Lieuallen stated that a proposal was made to support Eugene Summer and he understands that the City does not have any money for this program but they are urging the County to contribute. Mr. Long responded that, in a meeting held on March 24, it was determined that approximately $70,000 could be devoted to that or some other targeted project this summer. e Ms. Miller asked if there had ever been a public hearing on this. Mr. Long responded that there is no requirement for one, but that there has been a task force. Ms. Smith stated that at the Program Agent Advisory Committee meetings, if someone wants to speak, they ar~ allowed to. Ms. Miller stated that they are speaking about a substantial amount of money and she feels it would be a good idea to have a public hearing. She would like to see public input on how the organizational structure should be set up. e Ms. Miller asked, in regard to Attachment E--a comparison of administrative overhead--how firm the staff cost projections on the City prime sponsor or independent program/consortium board would be. Mr. Miller responded that a certain percentage of each title program is allocated for administrative costs and what is left over can be used for staff costs. They found that Lane County was high in its overhead. By contracting, they predict that they could have total overhead costs of 25 percent or less. He added he feels very comfortable with that figure. , Ms. Miller stated she would like to hear more about the residency problem. It seems like a problem for agencies to fill positions for certain areas. Mr. Miller responded that it is more of a prOblem for agencies if the agency is funded only by Lane County, but is located within the city limits. They must find someone from the County to fill the positions. Arrangements can be made to swap positions, however. When the City became a program agent, the agencies were split 50/50 and each program operator had a separate labor pool. This split could be done differently; monies could be split half and half to each funded agency. e 3/26/80--8 e Mr. Long stated he had attended a LINK meeting and that the agencies with the residency problems are under County jurisdiction. There are options available that have not been explored. Ms. Miller stated she knows this is a major problem for people involved. She wants to know what the options are and if the City has explored them. Mr. Miller responded that they had not heard about the existence of major problems, but that a grievance procedure is provided and they have had no filings for grievance procedures. There has not been sufficient evidence of a problem to explore options at this time. Ms. Miller asked if the council chose Option A or B, what would happen to the reSidency situation. Mr. Long responded that the residency situation will not go away under any of the options. The greatest flexibility is in Option B and Option C with a consortium umbrella. Ms. Miller asked if administration would be more difficult under the full consortium. Mr. Miller responded that would only happen if there was difficulty between the two agencies. Mr. Lieuallen stated that apparently the residency requirement is being accommodated on the streets by the people in order to keep their jobs. This may be why the CETA office is not hearing about them. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the number of jobs was determined by the population. Mr. Miller responded that the Department of Labor does not set a number of positions; a certain amount of funds are given under the program. Mr. Lieuallen asked if a certain percentage of the population was in Eugene if that means that a certain percentage of the participants in the CETA program must be from the city of Eugene. Mr. Miller responded that was not the case. It is not a certain percentage of participants. Mr. Lieuallen asked if under the consortium, participants could apply for any job offered by the consortium. Mr. Miller responded that under a consortium, county residents could still not apply for positions targeted for city residents. Mr. Lieuallen asked if it was correct that under the consortium a percentage of the monies goes to Eugene and until those jobs fill up, Eugene residents could still apply for any jobs, even if they would be within the Springfield city limits and that this would be up to the percentage allocations within the dollar amounts. Mr. Miller responded that that was correct. . Mr. Obie stated that he had a 1:30 appointment and would be leaving at that time. Mr. Delay asked if it is correct that the same dollar amount under the consortium would be targeted for Eugene residents but that the mechanism might be different. He asked for clarification if an after-the-fact audit would be done to ensure that this happens. If residency is a problem, a job pool could be established to swap on paper although these mechanisms have not been qeveloped. Mr. Miller responded he was correct in all of those statements. Mr. Long stated that there has not been a great deal of feedback on the residency issue. He heard that about three weeks ago the County-based agencies were still having problems with residency. e Mr. Delay asked if the program could be operated more efficiently and more programs could be offered for the same dollars. Mr. Long responded that services could be increased with the same amount of dollars according to the staff report. 3/26/80--9 Mr. Delay asked for status of Titles 11-0 and VI, public service and employment projects. Mr. Miller responded that Title VI has a very good 4It performance record right now. In regard to Title II-D, the City would prefer to change the structure, as people are not getting their needs taken care of the way it is currently being' handled. Eighty percent of these people have college educations or more. With the structure the County is currently using there is no distinction between Title 11-0 and Title VI. In regard to Title II-D, a 29-percent job placement rate is not good. Staff is sure they could improve the performance of that group. Mr. Delay asked how Mr. Miller saw contracting as being more effective. Mr. Miller responded that one way this could be done would be to explore with the local school district a contracting option for a delivery system for youth services as an example. Mr. Delay asked if there was a sufficient number of non-profit agencies to handle the delivery of services. Mr. Miller responded that there are many non-profit agencies and the City staff is sure they could provide services. Mr. Lieuallen asked if in-house staff versus "contracting" has been a big stumbling block in discussions with Lane County. Mr. Miller responded that at first the County was absolutely opposed to this idea because they did not feel adequate accounta- bility could be assured with contracting. Toward the end of negotiations, there was some indication that the County felt contracting might be a possible option under a consortium. This would be a staff reduction for the County. Mayor Keller stated. he did not feel that the discussions with the County had reached any conclusions and both remain far apart on this issue. Mr. Lieuallen stated that the County program has been criticized and he would like clarification on what is wrong with their outreach and how the City could do better. Mr. Miller responded that new regulations have been enacted to cut down on people who are not eligible and this has created some complaints. He further stated the County has had a policy which requires people to wait in line. Not many handicapped people nor women with children could stand in line for a long period of time; there- fore they are not considered for positions. He added that the City is concerned, as earlier stated, that the County does not differentiate between Title VI and II-D. Mr. Lieuallen stated he felt the County had made good arguments for Option C and asked if the County has reached a consensus in regard to contracting. Mr. Long responded that the County might be open to that, but did not feel that is a very good possi- bility. Mr. Lieuallen stated he would like a response from the County staff to some of these accusations being made since they are pretty severe. Mr. Obie stated he is ready to make a decision. Mr. Lieuallen stated he would like information on how the County feels about the contract issue, the residency issue, their intake process, and their outreach. Mayor Keller stated that there may have been harsh words but that the City staff, while critiquing the County program, was trying not to make it be a "blood bath." e tit 3/26/80--10 e Mr. Haws stated that this was a good example of wasting a lot of time during a meeting asking questions that could have been asked prior to the meeting. He stated that he was ready to vote and would be leaving at 1:30. Ms. Miller stated she felt this item should be held over until the next meeting and a public hearing should be held. Ms. Smith stated she would like a response to this since the deadline is April 7. Mr. Long responded that they could not meet the deadline if it were held over. Mr. Delay felt the staff had responded to issues raised by the Council; the question is how to get the most effective use for the monies spent. There are differences in approach between the two staffs but apparently there are ways for this to be resolved. He does not have a problem with the City and County pursuing separate models of implementing the program. It will probably be necessary to hold this item over. Ms. Schue stated she agreed with Mr. Delay and Ms. Miller. She thought the discussion wa~ of a philosophical nature on what the most effective structure should be. She further stated that it would be inequitable for a City Councilor to serve on the board in the same way that a County Commissioner does since City Councilors are not paid. If there are constructive facts that need to heard then the council should listen. Mr. Miller stated if the item would be held over they would not be able to get the letter to Seattle by Monday, April 7. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that council approve Staff Recommendation B--City/County program operator/consortium board-- in concept; that staff begin drafting the necessary paperwork and information to send to the Department of Labor within the time guidelines; that if the council desires to have additional input and/or a change of direction at their next meeting, they will have the right to do so; but that in essence the process is to be started or the possibility of a consortium would be lost. Mayor Keller restated the motion: "The motion is to approve Staff Recommendation B in concept and it would be discussed next week; staff is to go ahead with the necessary work." Mr. Lieuallen stated he was in opposition to the motion and was angry that they are now up against a tight time line. Mr. Delay stated that the council set this meeting up without calling a public hearing; if someone is at fault it is the council. Council has a responsibility to make timely decisions. He would hear from any interested parties today. He is not sure he supports the motion and asked for clarification. Ms. Smith stated the intent of the motion was to direct staff to move toward the consortium or the City would not have the opportunity to work as a consor- tium for the next year. Mr. Long stated that they must present what the model would look like to the Department of Labor. ,. 3/26/80--11 Mr. Delay stated that the council should hear from people who wish to speak at this time. Mr. Haws left the meeting. . Ms. Schue stated she would not like to have the letter mailed until after input was received. She is comfortable with having staff work with the assumption of approval. Mayor Keller noted this is not a new item of discussion; negotiations have been going on for a long time. Mr. Long stated if the motion passed, staff could prepare correspondence and it could be available at the Wednesday, April 2, council meeting for review prior to mailing the application. Ms. Miller stated she would like to discuss the merits of the proposal and stated she dislikes the process, but thinks it is the council's own fault. Mr. Obie left the meeting. Ms. Smith stated the intent of the motion was to approve in concept the proposal as recommended by staff and next week would provide an opportunity to reaffirm or overturn that decision. Mayor Keller stated if public input is desired, it should be advertised as a public hearing and both sides should have the opportunity to respond. Mr. Lieuallen said people had been involved in this process for a long time and he has a problem with approving "in concept" a particular model at this time. e Mr. Delay stated the problem with having a public hearing later, once the documents are prepared, is that it would mislead the public. There would not be adequate time to prepare documents for a different option. He thought, that whoever was there at this time should be heard. Mayor Keller stated that three councilors have a 2 p.m. meeting. Providing public input: Cynthia Wooten, 670 West 10th Avenue, stated she was at the meeting to urge the council to support a single consortium implementing the CETA program. She stated the City could not afford having a training program isolated from all other elements in the county. Eugene-Springfield is a single labor market. However, residents are kept from jobs because of residency. They move on a temporary or permanent basis in hopes of getting a job. A joint program would be less costly. Jim Williams, 738 Sunnyside Drive, expressed appreciation to the council for listening. He manages a CETA program with 12 people and has been dealing with an efficient County staff. He felt the real lssues are a single labor market and administrative duplication should be reduced . 3/26/80--12 e rather than increased. Adoption of Proposal B would increase duplica- tion. He supports a full consortium. From a service provider's point of view, two programs would work as a disadvantage, not an 'advantage. The City and County should work together on economic development. Lane Interagency Network passed a resolution to encourage local government to state opposition to the residency requirements to the Federal government, to cooperatively encourage economic development between the City and County, and to eliminate administrative duplication. e Liz Webb, Lane County employee, stated that in regard to Attachment 0 of the staff memo, the County would like to clarify some items. The cost of entering employment was an estimate. Not all prime sponsors in the area have completed the close-outs necessary to obtain actual figures. The Department of labor updated these figures and they are open to question. The employment rate in Item II -B may look low, but 'the County has made an effort in serving minorities, disadvantaged youth, handicapped youth, and juvenile offenders and those groups normally take more time. In regard to the item of Titles 11-0 and VI, she thought the County had done a good job. The City program agent has also done a good job in these two areas. Twenty-seven percent of their enrollment in YETP is juvenile offenders. In regard to administrative cost, for a $13-million program, $1.8 million was budgeted for administration which would be 13.8 percent. In regard to intake, she considers Mr. Miller's statements to be incorrect. Eligibility requirements determine who will be served by programs 11-0 and VI. Philip Miller, 580 West 8th Avenue, stated that LINK is very concerned. They strongly endorse the comprehensive consortium model. One major concern is that the City staff feels they have no control over what they refer to as lithe Lane County CETA Program." Twelve of the 15 members of the advisory council are prominent Eugene residents. Before Eugene became a program agent, city of Eugene residents had access to 100 percent of all the CETA jobs and 60-70 percent of these were filled by Eugene residents. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Lieuallen stated that according to the staff report, Model C seems to be the best way to go. Accepting Model C seems to be the message until the end of this report. At that time, staff states that Recommendation B, or if not B then A, would be the one to choose. He stated he would like to see Model C endorsed with strong emphasis on contracting services. Mayor Keller stated he would support the motion and feels that the council has a primary responsibilty to accept staff's position to ensure good management with a minimum of administrative cost. He is not saying that the City and County cannot eventually get together and solve differences, but it would be in the City's best interest to support the staff report. Ms. Miller stated she would vote for the motion. She does not see that intergovernmental departments have worked and does not see that this one would. The expectation is that the City's overhead would be lower than the County's. She would expect user groups to inform City staff if this were not the case, or if they were not being served more effectively. e 3/26/80--13 e e .e , ' Mr. Delay stated he agreed with Ms. Miller. He said there is an issue of residency and City staff feels they can produce more effective delivery systems. He is willing to take the risk that staff can do that. He wants to see the program working. Ms. Schue stated agreement with Mr. Delay and Ms. Miller, but stated she hears others who do not agree and feels the staff will prove them wrong. Roll call vote; motion carried 4:1, with Councilors Delay. Smith, Miller, and Schue voting aye and Councilor Lieuallen voting no. The meeting was adjourned to April 2, 1980. Respectfully submitted, jiJ-u /:'/lU- Don Allen Acting City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) LN:sb/CM7a1 3/26/80--14