Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Swanson Gribskov moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, that the council not <br /> repeal the concerned ordinances at this time, and to instruct the City <br /> Manager to examine the fee structure and propose a cost-neutral structure <br /> by July 1, 1998. If an application under the ordinances was made, the costs <br /> would be addressed by the council through a Contingency Fund request. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked staff to consider the likelihood that multiple applications would be made in <br />any single year and to consider how to plan for such an event. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that she would still like the information requested of staff. <br /> Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br /> III. CONTINGENCY FUND REQUEST--THE COALITION TO REBUILD COMMUNITY <br /> TELEVISION <br /> <br />Ms. Elmer deferred to Ms. Taylor, who had brought the request for contingency funding to the <br />attention of the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor spoke on behalf of the request, saying that Community Television was a good way to <br />build citizen involvement and keep citizens informed about their community. She believed that <br />informed citizens were more likely to participate in civic events. <br /> <br /> Ms. Swanson Gribskov moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to authorize the <br /> expenditure of $7,500 from the Contingency Fund to enhance Community <br /> Television. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov indicated she would not support the motion. She agreed that Community <br />Television was an important community asset but questioned its relative priority given recent <br />budget cuts and the City's limited funds. Ms. Swanson Gribskov noted her belief that Community <br />Television would continue to exist. She did not think that the Contingency Fund was an <br />appropriate source of funds for such requests, preferring to retain it for emergency uses. Ms. <br />Swanson Gribskov did not want to set a precedent with unforeseen consequences. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said he would support the motion. He said that the City had not been very successful in <br />fostering citizen involvement, and Community Television was a means of reaching out to people <br />and getting them involved. Community Television could help citizens tell the council what they <br />wanted. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner indicated his concurrence with Ms. Swanson Gribskov's remarks. He was <br />concerned that there did not seem to be a significant attempt on behalf of the coalition to raise <br />funds from sources other than the City. He reminded the council that Community Television was <br />only available to those with the resources to purchase cable service. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she had encouraged the City Manager and staff to make more use of public <br />access when attempting to get information out about City initiatives. She agreed that Community <br />Television reached only those with cable services, but she pointed out that involved quite a few <br />citizens. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to distinguish between the programming offered by <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1998 Page 4 <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />