CC Minutes - 12/07/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that the elimination of d, e, and k removed the "teeth" of the proposal. She did not support the elimination of k as she believed the council was asking applicants to demonstrate how the request fit into the "context of everybody else." Ms. Nathanson said that she could not support the amendment. She did not think alternative motion one would "hamstring" the council because it still had a Contingency Fund through which to fund other requests. She said that the alternative "raised the bar" and ensured the council did not continue to "willy nilly" grant a variety of large and small requests on an ad hoc basis. Ms. Nathanson said the alternative was an improvement over the current process in place, which also included a process and guidelines. If the motion failed, Ms. Nathanson said, she would support alternative motion one with amendments to d and k. For example, she would revise k to indicate the application must include information about the following when available: a) demonstrated support from other associated groups/agencies; b) funds sought and/or received from other governmental agencies; and c) funds sought and received from the City of Eugene within the last two years. Mr. Tollenaar said in the interest of compromise he could support alternative motion two although he liked the idea of the discretionary account to ensure the bulk of the Contingency Fund was directed toward government operations. He strongly agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the need to retain k because it addressed the concern expressed by councilors in the past about Eugene as a sole source of funding raised by councilors. He suggested k could be revised as follows: If the benefits of this program or facility accrue to nonresidents of the City of Eugene, then the applicant must demonstrate that funding is also being requested from other local governments or agencies. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to amend the motion by incorporating the text suggested by Ms. Nathanson for item k. Mr. Farr suggested the advantage to his motion was that it avoided the target amount issue raised by Mr. Johnson. Ms. Taylor said that alternative motion one made it more clear what the funds could be used for. She favored capping the amount granted for each application. She agreed with Mr. Johnson that the community would see the funding as a target, but pointed out that citizens would continue to make such funding requests anyway. She wished to postpone a final decision so the council could put more thought into the final resolution. Ms. Taylor moved to table the motion. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Swanson Gribskov indicated her support for the amendment. Mr. Laue supported the amendment, suggesting it was a compromise almost all could live with. Mr. Meisner said that he thought alternative motion two was improved by the amendment to k, but he preferred alternative motion one as he believed it gave the community a clearer message about the primary purpose of the Contingency Fund as being intended for unanticipated City- related expenditures. He believed alternative motion two established a $600,000 rather than $50,000 target. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 7 5:30 p.m.