CC Minutes - 12/07/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

money would be spent right away and the council would have little leeway over that process. He agreed with Mr. Laue that the council should avoid limiting itself unduly. Mr. Fart pointed out that the Contingency Fund was one of the few discretionary items within the council's control. He believed guidelines would further "hamstring" the council. Mr. Fart agreed with Mr. Lee that the council had been elected to make decisions, and he did not think the council needed a "huge process" to do so. He was now inclined toward alternative motion two. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to adopt alternative motion two. Responding to Mr. Fart's comments, Ms. Taylor said that the council did not currently spend adequate time reviewing any of the requests. Responding to Mr. Lee's comments, Ms. Taylor suggested that the alternatives were developed in an an attempt to avoid "government by emotion." She added that she did not think it was the role of city government to be a social service agency. She was also concerned the City was not living up to the obligations it already had, such as the Sister City Program and recreation programs. Mr. Meisner opposed the motion. He said that alternative motion one did not create a new process but rather refined and improved the current process. He was not comfortable with increasing the amount of the discretionary fund to $100,000 for the reasons stated by Mr. Johnson and Ms. Swanson Gribskov, pointing out other Contingency Fund moneys would be available for allocation to organizations furthering a City goal or plan. Mr. Meisner said that while he had supported an approach that had incorporated Human Services Commission staff review for consistency with commission guidelines, he was willing to drop the idea given Ms. Nathanson's remarks about community nonprofits. He concurred with Ms. Nathanson's remarks about the reason the issue came up. He said that while it was true the council was elected to make decisions, he believed it was incumbent upon the council to establish guidelines for funding; he was unaware of any granting organization that operated without such guidelines. Mr. Meisner recollected his discomfort on receiving an application to be the sole public sponsor of a women's health conference the same week the Budget Committee had cut recreation programs, and questioned whether such an expenditure was consistent with the council's goals. Mr. Lee said that councilors could vote in opposition if they opposed a funding request. He said that the council should be "up front" with the fact it did not want to have to say no to a member of the public when an application was submitted. He termed it a leadership issue and said he disagreed with an approach that intimated the council was not disciplined enough to say no and had to come up with guidelines. Mr. Lee said that Process step d should be eliminated; the council should decide if it wanted to make more than one appropriation in a two-year period on a case-by-case basis. He added that the "world does not revolve around our fiscal cycle," which was why the Contingency Fund was not included in the budget process. Mr. Lee said council needed liquidity to be able to address unanticipated problems that arose throughout the year. He said that governing was not predictable. Mr. Lee also favored eliminating the funding ceiling for the same reason. He also opposed Guideline k, which called for demonstrated support from associated groups/agencies, saying it was up to the council to decide if funding was appropriate. Mr. Lee expressed confidence in his judgment and encouraged other councilors to do the same. He said the guidelines were unnecessary. Mr. Lee said he could support alternative motion two with the revisions he had stated: elimination of d, e, and k. Mr. Fart indicated he would accept those changes as a friendly amendment to the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 6 5:30 p.m.