CC Minutes - 08/11/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to amend the motion by removing the words "spray can" from the motion. Mr. Kelly said that what the council would be doing if the amendment were approved was to add yet another program. Ms. Nathanson wondered how many kids in the community were doing spray can art. Mr. Meisner said he opposed the amendment, but if it passed the council's intent about what kind of program it was looking for with the RFP should be made very clear. Ms. Taylor spoke in favor of the amendment. The motion to amend passed, 5:2; with Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner opposed. Addressing a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Johnson said this type of program had never been attempted by the City, although there had been similar programs (in the Department of Youth Services) that used art as therapy, etc. Mr. Lee ascertained that perpetrators could, at the court's discretion, be mandated to participate in the program. Mr. Lee said he was supportive of the approach and hoped to see some exciting ideas to consider. Mr. Kelly asked that the RFP include some of the recommendations made in Jim Evangelista's e-mail. He said he favored "predominantly" because this was a reaction to spray-can art/graffiti. He noted that nothing in his motion prevented the use of public space. Mr. Kelly said he also did not wish to go outside the budget process but raised this in context of the ordinance. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Johnson said that if the City found the problem spreading despite the program, a chance would likely be given to allow for a dialogue with the perpetrators. Ms. Nathanson said if the purpose was to decrease the amount of unwanted graffiti and the program was not doing that, the money should be redirected to programs that do work or could be stopped very quickly if it were not working. Mr. Johnson said the program could be stopped very quickly if desired. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Papd, that the amount not exceed $15,000, and that the quarterly assessment include findings that unwanted graffiti was not significantly increasing or spreading. Mr. Kelly said approving the lessor amount set the program up for failure, adding that the second phrase was too general and difficult to apply. Mr. Papd said he supported the amendment for financial reasons, adding that the council might choose at any time to increase support to the program. Mr. Meisner said he opposed the motion, explaining that he could support the amount but not the contingency. The motion failed, 2:5; with Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Papd voting in favor. Mr. Papd moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to reduce the amount to $12,000. The motion failed, 2:5; with Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Papd voting in favor. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m.