Laserfiche WebLink
The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />B. Work Session: Neighborhood Matching Grants Program <br /> <br />Beth Bridges of the Planning and Development Department provided a PowerPoint presentation on the <br />Neighborhood Matching Grants Program, highlighting successful projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart commended the program as key to the Neighborhood Program in general. It helped neighbors to feel <br />a sense of accomplishment and empowerment. He thought that funding for advertising the program was <br />needed to reach more citizens, pointing out that the map of Eugene provided by staff indicated that about half <br />the projects occurred in south Eugene. He wanted to ensure that all parts of the city participated, and asked if <br />staff had thoughts on how to reach citizens in west Eugene. Ms. Bridges responded that the City had two <br />strategies: one was to issue news releases on projects to local media, who could decide whether to use the <br />information; the other was to go to neighborhood associations with a presentation on the program. She agreed <br />an advertising budget would be useful, and conceded she had not considered the use of Metro TV. Mr. <br />Johnson indicated staff would follow-up. Mr. Fart thanked Ms. Bridges and Richie Weinman for their work. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked what performance measures would demonstrate whether the program helped to build <br />community. Ms. Bridges said that currently, volunteer hours were tracked as a performance measure. She had <br />not yet developed additional outcome performance measure on the neighborhood building element of the <br />program. Ms. Nathanson encouraged staff to give the issue more thought. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if staff kept track of who applied for grants. Ms. Bridges thought half of the applicants <br />were ad hoc groups formed around a project. The other applicants included neighborhood groups, parent <br />advisory groups, and business associations. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the staff track that information <br />over time. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if staff had coordinated with the school districts on the program. Ms. Bridges said yes. <br />One of the members of the department advisory committee was from the Bethel School District, and the <br />Request for Proposals were sent to school administrators and school site councils. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner shared Ms. Nathanson's interest in community-building. He also expressed pleasure that non- <br />neighborhood associations were involved. He confirmed the program budget for the first two years and asked <br />if some of the budget carryover funds could be used for advertising. Ms. Bridges noted that the carryover <br />funds were not general funds but dedicated funds, such as Community Development Block Grant funds. Mr. <br />Johnson reminded Mr. Meisner that the council had wanted the funds to be spent on projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly endorsed the program, saying it brought people together to make positive changes for their <br />neighborhoods. He said that the Seattle program had started on the same level in terms of funding and the <br />program budget had grown to more than $4 million annually. He wanted the manager to consider how to <br />escalate program funding to a greater amount. He shared the concern about advertising mentioned by other <br />councilors and acknowledged staf?s reluctance to spend the funding in that manner given the project-focus of <br />the program. He suggested that given the funding cycle, perhaps some dollars could be expended before the <br />next Request for Proposals was issued on provocative display advertising in The Register-Guard. He <br />suggested that a separate advertising line item for outreach be contemplated. Mr. Johnson said that staff <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 2001 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />