CC Minutes - 10/21/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

awarded to nonprofit agencies was significantly less than the other categories. Ms. Murdoch said the packet material included proposed criteria but if the council chose to limit the use of the contingency account to only city-related, council goal-related projects, consideration of the criteria was less important. Ms. Nathanson said she would support a motion that limited the fund to City projects; but she would follow that by introducing or supporting a revised motion that set aside an amount for community requests and adopt more limiting criteria. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to continue the current process, which allows nonprofit agencies to request any amount of assistance. Requests for funding will be reviewed on a quarterly basis and to be approved a funding request must meet criteria as set forth in items (a) through (m) of the proposed criteria. Mr. Laue objected to the request limit and urged the council not to constrain itself in this way and to continue the practice of rejecting or reducing applications deemed unqualified. Ms. Swanson Gribskov expressed concern that the council might be exerting more control than reasonable, saying the policy discussion were clearly outlined in the item summary and it was not a question of "doing away with anything." Ms. Nathanson said this was turning into a process argument instead of a content argument. She asked the council to decide how much to reserve for the organization's unanticipated extraordinary expenses and then how much the council wishes to spend on other types of programs or activities. She said the motion on the floor was not inconsistent with where she wanted to "end up" but it lacked the structure she favored. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Ms. Swanson Gribskov, to amend the motion by adding: "any contingency fund request from a social service agency or program first be referred to the HSC for review and comment in light of its continuum of care concept and the two-year plan." Mr. Tollenaar said he was impressed with the work of the HSC and the council would benefit from its experience. With respect to the proposed criteria, he said he believed there was too many requirements and, if passed, staff should not be too literal in applying it. Mr. Meisner said he opposed the amendment because he wished to retain the option to contract with the HSC to administer a contingency fund. Mr. Farr expressed support for the amendment, although he was concerned that some requests might be time -sensitive and hindered by the two-year cycle. Mr. Johnson said the council was essentially designing a program, with staff developing guidelines and funding criteria. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said she was not ready to vote and asked to postpone further discussion. Mr. Johnson said staff anticipated the need for more than one council work session primarily because staff needed some initial direction before clarifying and refining it for final action. MINUTES-Eugene City Council October 21, 1998 Page 6 11:30 a.m.