City to use forfeiture funds for drug treatment programs.

Byline: DIANE DIETZ The Register-Guard

CORRECTION (ran 1/17/02): Marshall Peter is the director of the nonprofit Directions Services. His first and last name were reversed in a story about the City Council in Tuesday's newspaper.

After three months of deliberations, the Eugene City Council finally settled on spending assets seized during drug busts on drug treatment.

But representatives from a half-dozen social service agencies expressed fears Monday that the council would make an offsetting cut to the city's regular contribution to social services - which they said would be disastrous in the current economic downturn.

"We have more and more people needing support and less and less ability to respond," said Peter Marshall, director of the nonprofit Directions Services.

The council voted 4-2 to earmark the money for drug treatment but backed away from specifying that the money be allocated through the regional Human Services Commission, which is where the city usually places its social service dollars.

Councilors Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor and Gary Pape voted in favor of the motion, while Nancy Nathanson and Gary Rayor were opposed. Councilors Scott Meisner and Pat Farr were absent.

Nathanson and Rayor opposed earmarking the money for any specific use, saying it's needed for a range of city services, including drug enforcement.

"There needs to be more money for the (Interagency Narcotics Enforcement Team), and where does that come from?" Rayor said. "That's the dilemma."

Councilors who approved the ordinance said they put the money into drug treatment to keep faith with voters who passed a statewide initiative in fall 2000 that banned using forfeiture money for police activities. The measure also specified that such proceeds should be used for drug treatment or some other disposition.

The choice between "drug treatment" or "other disposition" sparked three months of debate among councilors on where the money should go.

Some argued that voters meant for it to go into drug treatment exclusively; others favored putting it into the city's general fund, where it would create enough slack to keep paying for drug enforcement without cutting other programs.

The first round ended Dec. 10 with the council voting 7-1 to put the money into drug treatment. But two days later, the council voted to reopen the decision, unsure whether the money should be restricted to Eugene residents only.

Monday's decision could turn out to be a mixed blessing for the city's poor, homeless and troubled residents, said Steve Manela, manager of the Human Services Commission.

If the city chooses to spend the money through the commission, it will roughly triple the amount local governments spend on drug treatment.

But agencies worry that what's a bonanza for drug treatment will mean budget cuts for other commission programs that provide shelter, health care and food.

That's what will happen if - come this spring - the council backtracks on its roughly $920,000 annual contribution to commission programs.

That couldn't come at a worse time because the commission is facing budget cuts from every direction, Manela said.

Congress is expected to reduce its block grant appropriations in 2003, and Gov. John Kitzhaber is considering as much as $170 million in cuts in state social service programs.

At the same time, the need for social services is mushrooming with the county job loss reaching 2,000 in the past year, while housing and energy costs have climbed.

The convergence of those trends will push an estimated 1,800 Lane County residents out of their homes this year, Manela said.

Commission members have grown so concerned, they've convened an intergovernmental Homeless Prevention Task Force - with public officials and volunteer leaders - to study what can be done to assist residents on the verge of homelessness.

But part of the Eugene council's reluctance to put more money into the regional Human Services Commission is that councilors believe that other governments aren't chipping in their fair share.

"Have you been making appeals to the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Springfield City Council?" Nathanson asked social service representatives in the audience. "Eugene is not the only agency putting money into the human services fund."

Eugene gave the commission about $920,000 from the city's general fund this fiscal year, compared with $385,000 from the county and $116,000 from Springfield.

But the county spends an additional $3 million on health, mental health and drug treatment services besides what it gives to the commission's fund, Manela noted.

"The history has been that the contributions are based on the ability to pay, and that's determined by the local governments at any given time," he said.

Still, the governments have asked a staff committee to study whether the three governments are each paying their fair share - and how that can be determined and measured.

Manela said the intergovernmental agreement that created the regional provision of social services will turn 30 years old this year.

It should remain undiminished, especially in the face of recession, he said. "It really is a time when we need to stay together."