CC Minutes - 08/10/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

neighborhood associations and might be addressed through an entity such as the Human Rights Commission. Mr. Corey explained that these items were in response to council comments about getting “more people to the table” than the few who were typically involved in such activities today. While Mr. Papé supported reaching out to a broader circle of people, he was uncertain whether this goal should be part of the neighborhood initiative. In response to another question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Corey explained that the focus on infill was in response to the planning aspects of the comments that were made and the ongoing review of land uses. He felt it was a higher level “generic” response to those comments. Mr. Papé asked Mr. Corey to speak to Action Step 6, having to do with scoping projects. Mr. Corey said scoping projects had been completed in two neighborhoods and at the highest level were activities that brought into focus the priorities of the individual neighborhoods. He stated it was a resource-intensive activity and the City had 17 neighborhoods left “to go” if this scoping should continue. Mr. Papé asked it this touched on updating neighborhood plans. Mr. Corey asked Planning Division Manager Susan Muir to respond. Ms. Muir stated that the scoping could lead to making such a list. Ms. Bridges clarified that the scoping projects had taken a different approach to neighborhood refinement plans as they did not have the same land use standing as a refinement plan. She said it was a way for the different stakeholders in a neighborhood to come together and identify the service needs that they had and to identify some priorities such as whether to build sidewalks or bicycle paths. She noted that these projects had been completed in the West University and the Bethel neighborhoods. Mr. Papé ascertained from Ms. Bridges that the City could not undertake further scoping projects using the available resources. Regarding Action Item 9, Mr. Papé opined that it would be good to identify the neighborhood-based services it referred to in order to ensure that the City could deliver the resource-intensive services. He thought that the City should start with neighborhoods to which it could deliver services. Ms. Taylor commented that the best thing in the plan was an increase in funding for neighborhood newsletters. She averred that the plan seemed to encompass “everything that the City does.” She sought to find ways to get citizens more involved in their neighborhoods in order to better facilitate communication and the flow of information between citizens and the City. She remarked that more involvement might lead to more contentiousness but this development could have a positive influence on City government. She wished to focus on a higher level of involvement and not a higher level of satisfaction. Ms. Taylor related that she had been concerned initially that all of the information was from staff and none was from the neighborhood leaders. She thought that the plan should start with what the City thought it should do and then work with what the neighborhood leaders thought the initiative should do. She shared her shock in seeing the citizen involvement plan. She opined it was a backward move and should not be counted as an achievement given that the City had dissolved the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC). She thought a good step to take would be to reactivate the CIC. Continuing, Ms.Taylor suggested that the council start ridding the list of items, as the plan was unwieldy. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 3 Work Session