11/19/1986 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ongoing Advisory Group e Councilor Holmer raised several questions about the advisory group. Why such a large number of people? Should a group this size be appointed by the council ? Should each neighborhood group be represented on the committee instead of just six? Is it appropriate for a councilor to be on the advisory group? The CATF members explained that that they had struggled with the composition of the advisory group and that the important issue was that a variety of interests were represented on the group. The task force members emphasized that the purpose of the group would be to support law enforcement and that the composition of the group could be flexible. Councilor Holmer commented that the intent of the advisory group was fine and that perhaps, if . the group gave quarterly reports to the neighborhood leaders, the neighborhood representation on the advisory group could be eliminated which would make the size of the committee more workable. Human Services Intervention Councilor Holmer expressed concern that if the City were to get into providing intervention services, it may be getting into the territory of some of the social service agencies. Task force members explained that the intent of the CATF is for the City to coordinate with existing social service agencies to provide additional services. Task force members said that a balance between enforcement and service was necessary; one without the other would not work. Councilor Holmer asked if the CATF had recommended a change in the Joint Social Service structure. CATF members responded that th~y felt the report did express some dissatisfaction with the structure and that the ongoing advisory group would most likely do additional work in this area. e Additional Comments Councilor Holmer questioned the political feasibility of Recommendation #66 (Establish a public safety user fee on tax-exempt property...). He suggested this might be done on a voluntary basis. Task force members said that they believed tax-exempt property owners would be willing to contribute to public sa fety. Task force members asked Councilor Holmer if he thought the recommendations that are not City-related would IIget lost?1I Councilor Holmer replied that for recommendations such as those dealing with school-related issues the City could encourage but not direct that the recommendations be implemented. Task force members agreed and explained that the intent of non City-related recommendations was for the city: 1) to take a leadership role in all aspects of the community: 2) to increase the visibility of public safety issues, and: 3) to develop a working relationship and ongoing dialogue between the City and other organizations. Councilor Holmer expressed some reservations about Recommendation #68 (tax incentives for single room occupancy housing). He suggested that there are other ways to deal with housing issues without creating tax incentives. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session November 19, 1986 Page 4