CC Minutes - 12/07/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Johnson pointed out that establishing a dedicated account sent a message to the community that the funds were available, and that could create a rash of requests. He said that concern might be offset somewhat by the fact that staff was not suggesting the council establish a request for proposals process, and allocations were made according to established council policy and in light of adopted plans. Mr. Johnson said he was concerned about adding an additional $50,000 to the fund as $100,000 was a considerable sum to make available for "anything that might come up." Mr. Lee asked what was wrong with the current process, as it did not prohibit the council from doing what the alternative motions outlined. He said the council was elected to make such decisions, and he questioned why it needed to set guidelines to discipline itself from allocating funds over which it had authority. Ms. Swanson Gribskov agreed with Mr. Johnson's concerns about the larger amount. She suggested the council might instead wish to consider increasing its allocation to the Human Services Fund. She thought it would be useful to have comment from the Human Services Commission on proposed allocations. Ms. Swanson Gribskov agreed with Mr. Lee about the council's authority to act, and with Mr. Laue about the fact the council could take action with a majority voting in support. She thought there was value to guidelines clarifying the intent of the Contingency Fund because she perceived no consistency in the way funds had been used in the past. Ms. Swanson Gribskov preferred alternative motion one to alternative motion two. She added that if the council did not place a ceiling on requests, one or two requests that consumed the majority of the funds would be received and then the council would be "back to where you were, anyway." Ms. Nathanson did not want to incorporate the Human Services Commission in the process. She did not think most requests would benefit from its review. She pointed out Guideline k called for demonstrated support from other associated groups/agencies, and suggested that was sufficient to give the council information about the workability of the proposal and the community's support for it. Regarding Mr. Lee's comments, Ms. Nathanson recollected that she had requested the discussion because of her concerns that more structure was needed. She had felt uncomfortable about the way requests were coming to the council and the lack of information supporting the requests, particularly in regard to support from other sources. Upon questioning, it had begun to appear to some councilors that Eugene was the "first and last resort" for funding. She did not object to elimination of Process step d, but suggested that Guideline k be revised to indicate that applications must show if funds had been sought and/or received from other governmental agencies and charitable foundations. Ms. Nathanson suggested as a further guideline the application must show whether the organization had sponsored or cosponsored an activity that received City funding in the past two years. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that the council would receive a flurry of requests at year's end if the account was not drawn down, and asked if funds could be carried over from year to year. Responding to Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Mr. Farr did not think the Human Services Commission had sufficient time to review detailed requests for small sums. He did not favor increasing the allocation to the Human Services Commission, adding that, given its large funding backlog, the MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 5 5:30 p.m.