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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner concurred with Ms. Nathanson regarding hand delivery of newsletters. Responding to a question from Mr. Torrey, Ms. Nathanson confirmed that her remarks were focused on a different way to use the existing budget. She added that she did not know what the council would do about the anticipated budget shortfall; she did not want to drop the different program approaches that had been suggested. She reiterated her other reason for the suggestion, which was communication between neighbors. Regarding the sources for the matching grant, Ms. Nathanson said she had previously suggested approaching commercial businesses closely associated with the neighborhood to solicit funds. Mr. Weinman said that staff would look into alternative ways of delivering newsletters when it knew more about the budget. He pointed out that neighborhood stakeholders also included property owners and businesses who did not live in the neighborhood, and if they were not contacted by mail they might not be reached at all. Ms. Nathanson agreed. Regarding Ms. Nathanson's sources for matching grants, Mr. Weinman said that businesses were a key source of funds, but he suggested that they were more likely the match for the grant than the grant source. Ms. Nathanson was concerned about start-up funds, saying if neighborhood stores and banks put a significant amount into the program it could be enough for seed money for some ongoing funding. Mr. Johnson asked about the source of the match if the City was soliciting businesses for start-up funds. Ms. Nathanson said she did not think that all businesses would have given to the initial start-up fund and could be solicited for matching funds. She said that larger businesses could be solicited for start-up funds or for capital moneys. Very small businesses could be solicited for the matching grant. Mr. Weinman said that staff could look into the potential of that approach. Mr. Pap~ said that the definition of "active neighborhood" would be key to the program, and noted that the Neighborhood Leaders Council had some ideas about that. He questioned whether the council would be able to develop such a definition in a single meeting, and asked why there was no funding for a collaborative effort to develop a definition. Mr. Weinman said that staff believed that the definition was a council decision that did not require additional staff funding. Mr. Johnson said that staff familiar with the program would assist the council in that effort. Mr. Pap~ said neighborhood associations could be a possible solution to the issues in the River Road/Santa Clara area, and asked how the City would work with the County inside the urban growth boundary. Mr. Johnson said the council should not just consider City residents in those areas because the City has responsibility for service delivery to River Road/Santa Clara. He did not think the City should differentiate between county and city residents in those areas. He acknowledged that there was probably insufficient funding budgeted to mail newsletters to those residents. Mr. Pap~ asked Ms. Nathanson what businesses would receive for their donations. Ms. Nathanson did not know. She said that the City needed to take care how it acknowledged the donations of private business. Mr. Fart agreed with Ms. Taylor's remarks regarding opportunities to publicize neighborhood meetings in City newsletters and publications. He noted that the northeast area of the city had a paper called Northeast Neighbors, which contained advertising. He said that the Bethel/Danebo area would like a similar publication, and suggested that it could parallel the City's efforts. He said that there was little commercial activity in the Bethel/Danebo area, so other ideas were needed for the source of the grant matches. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 1999 Page 9 5:30 p.m.