CCMinutes - 11/10/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

different approached to different service areas. She expressed concern about the relationships of neighbor- hood associations with other citizen involvement processes, such as the Budget Committee or workshops on parks or the downtown area. For problem-solving, she thought neighborhood associations were a great resource, but diversity in such associations was more difficult to achieve. She added that the social element of the associations was good in that it enabled such programs as Crime Watch and others. She called increasing neighborliness a ~laudable goal." Mr. Pap~ concurred with comments made by Mr. Kelly and Ms. Nathanson. He appreciated the presenta- tion and subsequent discussion. Regarding Attachment C, he asked how the City ensured there were four meetings annually with a minimum attendance often. Ms. Bridges responded that she placed a request with all neighborhood leaders at the end of the year for attendance records and, additionally, a staff member attended all of the general meetings and a majority of the NLC meetings. In response to another question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Bridges stated that she considered the fourth perform- ance measure under the Definition of an Active Neighborhood, requiring that neighborhood associations submit an annual report to the City, to be met if she knew that the neighborhood had an annual goal- planning session and subsequently met at the end of the year to assess how goals were met. She said there was not a common ability for neighborhoods to achieve the measure because the NLC had stopped doing an annual report. Mr. Papd recommended that the council '~tweak" the language to accurately reflect the council's directives. Mr. Papd asked how many neighborhood associations' memberships exceeded the recommended percentage of population. Ms. Bridges replied that three of them had membership greater than eight percent of the neighborhood population. The Active Bethel Citizens and the Cal Young Neighborhood Association were double the recommended level. Ms. Bridges, in response to Mr. Meisner, stated that one way neighborhood residents could find out about meetings was to look at the public meetings schedule on line. She added that a future service enhancement staff was researching was a way for residents to sign up for online newsletter delivery. Mr. Meisner thought it unlikely that much of the citizenry was aware that they could participate in the neighborhood associations for neighborhoods they worked in. Mr. Meisner agreed that the council should look at the Public Participation Spectrum. He underscored the importance of maintaining consistency for all associations and not elevating the status of one neighborhood group over another or neighborhoods over other citizen engagement efforts. Mayor Torrey commented that neighborhood associations, when they worked, were great. He observed that neighborhood matching grants brought people together around programs about which they were excited. He remarked that the worst element he had witnessed coming from neighborhood associations were that small portions of such associations had become opportunities for small groups of people to self-select and advocate their personal opinions to the Eugene City Council. He felt such people turned off other members of neighborhoods from attending the meetings. He advised the council and staff to find a way to overcome this. He cited the Cal Young Neighborhood Association as an example of an association whose leadership was not representative of the organization. He said the newsletter paid for by the City of Eugene was used as a personal "bully pulpit" to express one person's point of view and the neighborhood did not know how to address this. He suggested the neighborhood in question be broken into four areas. Mr. Kelly asked the City Manager to consider ways to move the discussion forward. He felt many good MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2004 Page 7 Work Session