05/31/1989 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ $27,000 and Mr. Gleason said this would enable the program to address some of the additional needs he anticipated would arise. Mr. Boles asked about the evaluative strategy for the program. He recommended that sources of long-term funding (beyond the "summer experiment" phase) be identified soon. Responding to Mr. Boles's question about evaluative strategy for the program, Mr. Gle~son said an evaluation team has worked to identify the program1s goals and objectives and is addressing methodology q~estions now. He illustrated the difficulty of measuring the program's success by asking whether an increase in the incidence of reported crime would indicate that the program has succeeded or failed. While the police component of the program will end in September, Mr. Gleason did not expect the program evaluation to be completed until October. He was concerned about funding the police component of the program from the overtime budget and said it would be impossible to sustain the effort year-round. He was hopeful that the Buckley House part of the program would be ongoing. Mr. Boles reiterated his concern about evaluation and stressed that indicators should be in place during the initial period of the program's implementation. Mr. Boles was encouraged to work directly with Dan Kaplan to develop measurable indices. Mr. Holmer volunteered to assist in that effort. Mr. Green inquired about the State's involvement in funding the program. Mr. Gleason responded that mental health money provided by the State is part of the program. Pending legislation could potentially provide some funding~ e C. Community Development Block Grant Reprogramming Request Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve reprogramming $100,000 of Community Development Block Grant funds from the Housing Rehabilitation Program to the Buckley House Rehabilitation Project. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. V. WORK SESSION: ANNEXATION AND SEWER ISSUES IN RIVER ROAD/SANTA CLARA Pat Decker, Planning and Development Department, reviewed the history of annexation policies in Eugene and other cities, the relationship of those policies to the River Road/Santa Clara area, and the options discussed by the council in October 1988. Ms. Decker said Eugene was not unique in the role that the extension of sewer, water, and other kinds of services or privileges play in the City's ability to control its destiny and to deal with urban growth. She cited Roseburg as an example of a city that gave up control of sewer services, found itself unable to control annexation and growth, and eventually bought a private water company in order to regain that control. In 1976, the Eugene City Council indicated concern about the relationship between urban levels of development and water extensions. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 31, 1989 Page 5