Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Mr. Tollenaar said that he was inclined to defer to the committee process to the extent <br />reasonable and would support the motion. However, he continued to be concerned about the <br />way the City budgeted for social services, and expressed hope that as a result of the discussion <br />staff would take a good look at ways the City could be more integrated, consistent, and coherent <br />about such allocations and not rely on the Ballot Measure 50 Transition Reserve and contingency <br />funds. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart again apologized for the last-minute request but assured the council that the proposal <br />had been deliberated thoroughly at the committee level. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that she was inclined to support the amendment because she supported the <br />program. She would have supported some level of increased funding as acknowledgment that <br />the City placed an additional burden on the program through passage of the camping ordinance. <br />Ms. Nathanson believed that councilors concerned about the proposal were concerned about <br />the process, not the program in question. She said that she was troubled that she was <br />considering casting an affirmative vote without having a single piece of paper showing the <br />amount requested and what would be paid for by the requested funding. Ms. Nathanson said <br />that because of her trust in the committee structure and staff, she would vote for the proposal, <br />but she termed it a "great leap of faith." She said that the process cannot be repeated for other <br />funding proposals or the public would be very critical of the council's actions. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that the issue was not a matter of not trusting the committee. He said that he <br />continued to have concerns about the committee structure and the proposal was an example of <br />why he was concerned. Mr. Meisner said that apparently substantive discussion took place at <br />the committee level, but the council received no information about it. It was not being told what it <br />was being asked to buy. He said it appeared the council could postpone the action without <br />harming the program. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov indicated she would support the motion and asked if the funding would <br />come from the transition reserves. Ms. Kittleson said the funding could come from the transition <br />reserves or the fiscal year 1999 Contingency Fund. Mr. Johnson said that given that he believed <br />it was Mr. Farr's intent that the funding be carried forward into future fiscal years, contingency <br />funding might not be appropriate. Mr. Farr confirmed that it was his intent to include the funding <br />in the next budget. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey suggested that the council clarify at this time if one-time funds would be used. Mr. <br />Johnson agreed. Mr. Farr said that he did not intend that the funding be one-time only funding. <br />Mr. Lee agreed. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor concurred with Mr. Meisner regarding the committee structure. She did not think the <br />council should automatically approve committee recommendations. She was also disturbed that <br />citizens wanted services restored, and the council appeared to be acting impulsively to fund <br />proposals such as the one in question. Ms. Taylor said that her vote would have nothing to do <br />with the value of the program, and it was not easy to vote against it, but she did not think the <br />process was appropriate. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed, 6:2; Mr. Meisner and Ms. Taylor <br /> voting no. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1998 Page 9 <br />7:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />