|
<br />-,
<br />
<br />Councilman Williams wondered whether a Eugene amendment to the proposed requirements
<br />_ and criteria would have to go back to the joint subcommittee for review and comment.
<br />,., Manager thought not, that it would only have to go back to the governing bodies since
<br />, they had already approved the proposals. Councilwoman Beal recalled former misunder-
<br />, standing on the part of the County of what kinds of new social services were to be
<br />. funded through the joint fund. She felt the Council had an obligation to Eugene
<br />citizens to protect city programs and voluntary social services in view of the city's
<br />major contribution to the joint fund. She was in favor of a review of the proposals
<br />,to see whether questions raised could be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. :
<br />Assistant Manager advised that questions raised at this time were also raised and dis-
<br />cussed at length at subcommittee meetings. Complete accord was not achieved, he 'said,
<br />with regard to not accepting proposals from governmental agencies for funding. However,;
<br />the subcommittee did strongly recommend submittal of the governmental agencies' plans
<br />'for assuming costs of proposals presented. He added that the:z;e 'had been problems in
<br />achjevingcitizen participation on the advisory committees, and the County was look-
<br />ing forward to' receiving help from the other two agencies on gaining more citizen
<br />,participation. Mrs. Beal thought, however, that the proposals presented should be
<br />more specific in protecting Eugene's interests and that they should be reviewed again
<br />because of tne uncertainty of political commitments in the next year.
<br />\
<br />Councilman Keller suggested separating priority lists for governmental and private
<br />agency proposals in view of the expressed concern about whether social services de-
<br />... livered by governmental agencies should be funded through revenue sharing monies.
<br />,., Councilman McDonald wondered about the outcome if revenue sharing funds were discon-
<br />tinued. Councilwoman Campbell felt both governmental and private programs had to be
<br />funded. She commented that this question had never come up when discussing allocation
<br />of room tax funds - both types of agencies were funded from that money. She did think
<br />the 25% limit (of the total fund for'any single agency) was too high.
<br />
<br />Ms. Smith said another concern of hers was that it appeared the budgeting procedure
<br />was being passed on to the social services management team and advisory committees
<br />,insofar as it concerned th.e. p. ri..o. ri ties of Eugene's social service needs. .. ~9!:. wO!!E.ere,cj
<br />what would happen to applications if they were denied :.. would the h-(Jdget, commi ttee' I
<br />add t~em as a part of the regular budget or abide by decision of the social services i
<br />advisory committees that they were not needed. ...'
<br />
<br />Councilman Williams noted the budget committee's authority for allocation of funds. i
<br />He thought the proposal as presented should be approved, recognizing that changes
<br />:could be made if problems arose.- He noted other actions which could be taken - the
<br />proposals could be amended, or they could be referred back to the social services
<br />subcommittee of the budget committee for revision or changes they might feel appro-
<br />priate. Consensus was that working out the requirements and criteria at this time
<br />'would be better than going into the budgeting process with questions unanswered or i
<br />ewithout a decisive attitude with regard to which of the various types of social serv~'
<br />ices would be funded.
<br />
<br />Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the Council take no final
<br />i action on the report and temporarily refer it back to the joint subcom- Comm
<br />mittee for consideration or comments made at this meeting and revision 10/30/74
<br />if thought necessary after reconsideration, one of the concerns being, i See action
<br />in addition to funding of governmental versus private social service ,pro- ~ below
<br />grams, the 25% limit to any single agency when an agency initially could i
<br />have contributed less than that to the joint fund. Motion carried
<br />unanimously. _ _ _ ___,__.,
<br />
<br />The Chair ruled that since this item had already been considered by the joing subcommittee
<br />on use of revenue sharing funds for social services and the Council's concerns app~rent1~
<br />answered, the matter woufd be brought back to committee-of-the-whole for further dlScusslon
<br />and action. There were no objections.
<br />
<br />B. Proposed Charter, West University, Neighbors/Neighborhood Organization Policy Guidelines,
<br />Copies of staff memo and the proposed charter were previously distributed to Council j
<br />,members. Staff questioned whether the charter met criteria in excluding from member- I'
<br />ship absentee property owners and/or tenants and limiting voting to residents of the
<br />.. 'neighborhood. Manager noted the wide variety of ,land uses in this neighborhood and !
<br />,., ;wondered whether restricting voting rights to residents only would meet the purpose f
<br />of neighborhood organizations for participation in the planning process. !
<br />
<br />! Tom Chambliss', member of the West University Neighbors, said the question of member- I
<br />: ship was 'addressed in meetings of the organi~ation. The major concern, he said, was I
<br />,
<br />,that the organization should speak primarily for the residential interests in the i"
<br />:neighborhood and provide a forum to promote the res.idential environment. He said ab-, 'j
<br />~s,eEt:.ee9wl}_e_rs or c:.the.rs .i.r:.t.er.e_st~d ~n. the ar~~ would not be ,::.xc.1,l:l_<!.'!.d_,~!9.m participat:__-.,
<br />, . - ~ T . - - - .. --. --, - - .
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />382 11/12/74 - 7
<br />
|