CC Minutes - 06/11/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Pap~ commented that the amendment set a horrible precedent about contingency fund use. He said he would not support the amendment. He raised concern over spending next year's contingency funds in the current year. Councilor Pap~ reiterated his objection to the way the grant was handled. The amendment passed 6:2, with councilors Nathanson and Taylor in opposition. Speaking to the main motion, Councilor Taylor said she could think of no better use of Community Development Block Grant funding than what was being proposed. She stressed the facility's importance to the community. Councilor Taylor moved to amend the motion by deleting the requirement on Springfield to help fund the request and getting the last $50,000 from the Human Services Commission rather than contingency funds. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Bettman commented that a true partnership would have come to the City early in the process, and let the council know that there would be a request for funding. She added that the City should have had an opportunity to offer land in lieu of cash. She raised concern over the location of the site chosen by staff because of lack of access. She said she philosophically supported the request but objected to the process used. Councilor Nathanson raised concern over the planned use of next years funds for unplanned emergencies and expenditures. She suggested that the money be allocated to some department's budget. She called for an explanation from City Manager Johnson as to why the request violated so many processes. Regarding the Human Services Commission funding, City Manager Johnson said that those funds were for operations only and did not include capital projects. Regarding the process used, City Manager Johnson apologized to the council. He said that he had tried to help the County District Attorney in getting the grant approved. He acknowledged that the grant did not meet the usual processes, but stressed that it was an opportunity for the City to be involved in a project that was very worthwhile. He commented that he had never seen a grant request from Lane County and added that it did not fit into the standard process. Councilor Pap~ acknowledged the worth of the project but reiterated his objection to the process used. Councilor Pap~ moved to table the motion to a date certain. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Meisner reiterated his concern over the precedent set by the request. He commented that what was a request from the Child Advocacy Center could end up as future demands to participate in State and County general law enforcement needs. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 5 Regular Meeting