CC Minutes - 04/28/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

being sponsored by the City of Portland on April 29 to learn about the Oregon approach to land use planning, and that conference also would be more highly attended than similar conferences in the past. Mr. Farmer said that he had the opportunity to discuss neighborhood programs with people from around the country, and learned they came in all varieties, with all funding levels and many different approaches. Such programs were tailored to the needs of their communities and generally evolved over time. Mr. Farmer said that when such programs worked well they were very effective, particularly in terms of communication between a government and its citizens. He said that different programs defined neighborhood boundaries in many ways. There did not appear to be a "right" way to establish a boundary, although many cities use census tracts as a basis for boundaries. Mr. Farmer briefly described his experience in working with neighborhood programs. Mr. Weinman reminded the council of its past work sessions regarding the Neighborhood Program. He said that four issues remain: 1) adoption of a neighborhood association mission statement; 2) agreeing on elements of the program redesign; 3) identify program funding; and 4) clarifying definitions of active neighborhoods and the criteria for changing neighborhood boundaries. Another work session would be held on May 12. He asked the council to consider the budget and mission statement, and noted that the council had reviewed the mission statement before. Mr. Weinman reviewed the staff recommendation for the program budget. Mr. Kelly asked about the previous proposal to change neighborhood boundaries at a cost of $8,000. Mr. Weinman said that changing the boundaries would first require a council policy discussion. Assuming staffing was available for the other work program items, that staff would also be used to work on that project. Mr. Kelly asked if there were new assumptions behind the decreased newsletter budget. Mr. Weinman said that the initial budget was based on the cost of mailings from the Public Works Department, and he had discovered that those mailings were generally heavier and higher in cost than a newsletter, so the budget was lowered. Mr. Meisner said he was concerned that, given the level of council support for the boundary redesign, it was not included in the staff recommendation. Mr. Johnson pointed out the item was included in the packet on page 86. Mr. Meisner said that the information was not present in what he termed the "new staff recommendation," presented at the meeting. Mr. Meisner asked if the existing FTE was dedicated to neighborhood work only. Mr. Weinman said yes. Mr. Meisner asked if the newsletter funding estimate was based on current or projected costs. Mr. Weinman said the estimate was based on all households getting four newsletters each year. Mr. Meisner asked if that could be done at bulk mail rates. Mr. Weinman said yes. Mr. Meisner observed that was contrary to what he had been told before. Mr. Meisner expressed concern about starting the matching grant funding at the $100,000 level with no other options offered the council. He asked why staff was recommending $100,000. Mr. Weinman said that a playground, for example, could cost $50,000. One or two projects could consume that level of funding, and staff wanted to start out with enough money to make an impact. Mr. Johnson termed the amount small but MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m.