CC Minutes - 12/07/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

funds from Contingency to the operating budget in the next supplemental budget. The process also included an evaluation process using pre-established criteria. Ms. Nathanson favored the first alternative motion as it was closest to what she had previously suggested. She said that Ms. Murdoch had referred to "social service agencies" while the motion referred to "community nonprofit groups"; she favored the latter description as the council had granted money for other purposes than ongoing social service needs. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about Process step d, which read Funds may be received only once during a period of two fiscal years; she preferred that it be revised to read The council will grant no more than one funding request to an organization during a two-year period, Ms. Nathanson said that during the recent National League of Cities Conference she had learned of other cities with guidelines for the allocation of such funds, and asked the council to be open to future modifications to the guidelines after she had time to contact those cities for more information. She added that in some cases, councils turned the task of allocating Contingency funds to other groups. While she liked the first alternative motion better than the second, Ms. Taylor did not prefer either option and suggested the council not act in haste. She also liked the idea of guidelines, but continued to think allocations for social services and nonprofit groups should be part of the budget process, and the Contingency Fund reserved for purposes directly related to the operation of the municipality. Mr. Meisner also preferred alternative motion one. He said that the Contingency Fund should be used for unanticipated, City-related expenses. He said the motion achieved the balance he sought. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson's suggested revision to Process step d, and endorsed the guidelines included in alternative motion one. Mr. Farr asked if alternative motion one precluded the use of other Contingency Fund dollars for social services. Ms. Murdoch said no; that was not the intent of the motion. The motion was intended to address the small requests for fee relief and day-to-day expenses the council received. Mr. Farr said with that explanation, he could probably support alternative motion one. He added that he was concerned about agencies such as Lookingglass, who had the occasional need for relief and support for unanticipated expenses or programs, and the restriction on such allocations created by Process step d. Mr. Farr requested a provision that allowed the council to override that step. Mr. Johnson pointed out that a majority of the council could make such allocations at any time. Mr. Tollenaar supported the concept underlying alternative motion one. He thought it would be useful for the council to have a dedicated source of funding to allow it to accomplish some of its community goals. Mr. Tollenaar supported elimination of Process step d, and suggested that the amount be increased from $50,000 to $100,000. He questioned whether a ceiling of $5,000 per funding request might not be too Iow, given the history of such requests. Mr. Laue concurred with Mr. Tollenaar's remarks. He reminded the council that the guidelines were just that, that the council could take action on any request with a majority of members, and suggested that councilors not limit themselves unduly. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 4 5:30 p.m.