Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/24/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall September 24, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr, Gary Rayor. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Items from the Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mr. Kelly had no items. Mr. Meisner had no items. Ms. Bettman had no items. Ms. Nathanson had no items. Ms. Taylor asked that the director of the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority be invited to a meeting to discuss his work at that agency and possible legislation the City Council could support during the next legislative session. Ms. Taylor noted that the 8 p.m. meeting had been canceled and therefore there would be no Public Forum; she asked that any members of the public who wished to speak be allowed to do so at the end of the meeting. Mayor Torrey indicated that he would have to leave before the end of the meeting and that would be Ms. Taylor's decision as council president. Mayor Torrey asked for council permission to re-establish the Mayor's Library Improvement Committee to return to the council with recommendations for future ballot measures to reinstitute the library levy. He asked Mr. Meisner, the chair of that committee, to secure a list of committee members and shared it with the council. Mayor Torrey left the meeting table, and Ms. Taylor assumed the chair. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 1 Work Session B. Work Session: Joint Meeting with the Police Commission The council was joined by Police Commission members Dr. Munir Katul, John Brown, Carla Newbre, Richard Hursey, Maurice Denner, and Tim Laue for the item. Eugene Police Chief Jim Hill, Captain Elvia Williams, and commission staff Jeanine Parisi were also present. Mr. Brown, chair of the Police Commission, reviewed the order of the commission's presentation. Dr. Katul, chair of the commission during 2000 to 2001, reviewed the commission's accomplishments over the past year, highlighting the commission's findings and recommendations on crowd control and police use-of-force policies and the development of a community values statement related to those policies. Dr. Katul described the public involvement process that accompanied the development of those documents. He commended the assistance of the Police Department and the American Civil Liberties Union in those efforts. Dr. Katul noted commission members' participation in efforts such as the Racial Profiling Task Force and Hobson Report deliberations. He said that the commission worked closely with all levels of the department and worked to develop trust with the staff. Dr. Katul said the commission hoped to further increase public involvement as it worked through issues related to community policing. He briefly noted some past outreach efforts to the media and public. Dr. Katul said that the commission embarked on its work on community policing by first educating itself about the concept and its current status in Eugene. He said work on other issues had delayed progress on community policing, but that the work item would be addressed in the proposed work plan. Ms. Nathanson asked about the extent to which the commission collaborated with staff of the Municipal Court or with the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC), and if the commission thought such collaboration was useful. Mr. Brown indicated that he would discuss the commission's liaisons in his part of the presentation, and noted that Ms. Newbre was the commission's liaison to the PSCC. Ms. Newbre discussed the commission's upcoming work program, focusing on activities related to community policing, which included development of a vision statement and a public input solicititation action plan. The commission hoped to educate the public about community policing and learn about its values and priorities. Ms. Newbre said the commission also hoped to develop findings and recommendations that ensured community policing implementation strategies reflected best practices and were consistent with those values and priorities. She indicated that the commission would go out to the public to seek its input through forums as well have a Speakers Bureau, and would conduct opinion polls through a questionnaire. Mayor Torrey left the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Brown discussed the commission's liaison program, and identified the commissioners acting as liaisons to different groups: Angie Sifuentes and Dr. Katul would continue to work with the Racial Profiling Task Force; Dr. Katul and Mr. Denner would work with the department on staffing issues; Ms. Newbre would work with the PSCC; and Mr. Laue would work with the department on strategic planning. Mr. Brown discussed emerging issues in the work plan, identifying media access as such an issue. He invited the council to join the commission for a media access workshop planned for the regular meeting on October 11. He said that the new internal affairs auditor would also be at that meeting for the purpose of introductions and establishing working relations. He identified racial profiling as another emerging issue. A new policy was contemplated for the carotid hold; a subcommittee had been established for that effort. Mr. Brown said that noise complaints and the special response fee were also scheduled for discussion. He further noted that a policy was being developed for the use of bicycles by department staff. Mr. Brown identified photo red light and the department's new impoundment policy as other possible agenda topics. He said the commission was also prepared to address new issues as they arise. He invited questions. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding her status at the PSCC, Ms. Newbre said she had not yet attended a meeting and did not know if she would have a place at the table or a vote. Ms. Nathanson asked how the commission would solicit information from, for example, the Municipal Court judge or court staff: through the staff or directly? Mr. Brown assumed that the commission would solicit that information through its staff, although he did not think the commission would hesitate to ask the judge to attend a meeting and give input. Ms. Nathanson believed the judge had a role in different points in the commission's work; for example, he could provide input on how a policy was working, or input on a policy under consideration. Speaking to Ms. Newbre as liaison to the PSCC, Ms. Nathanson thought there was a direct relationship between the work being done by the PSCC and the commission's work. She cited the statistics reported by different jurisdictions and performance measures as examples and asked that Ms. Newbre follow that issue. She said that in addition, PSCC was working to reduce redundancies and shift resources to fill gaps that exist, and information from the City's liaison with staff would be useful in that effort. Dr. Katul noted the mayor and Ms. Nathanson's membership on the PSCC as well as its large size, and said for that reason the commission did not advocate for membership. He asked for Ms. Nathanson's input on the subject. Ms. Nathanson noted the PSCC contained citizen members already, agreed that the group was very large, and further suggested that its membership was delicately balanced. She thought it might be a mistake to request membership because it would spur other groups to demand the same status. She invited Ms. Newbre to contact her or the mayor if she thought something had been missed by the PSCC and needed to be raised at a PSCC meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly expressed gratitude to the commission for taking on the tough issues it had on the work plan. He said that an important part of community policing was addressing the root causes of crime. He emphasized the importance of funding for drug treatment to combat the fact the majority of crimes committed in Eugene were drug-related. Mr. Kelly thought more needed to happen in this area, and hoped the commission would include the issue in its efforts and begin to think about how the definition of public safety and what the police do could be enlarged to deal with that root cause. Mr. Kelly expressed concern over the commission's plan not to use statistically valid surveys that were representative of the population. Ms. Newbre responded that the commission was less interested in a statistically valid survey than it was in having an idea about the trends of knowledge and interest in the community. She said that it was difficult and expensive to design a statistically valid survey instrument; while the commission had discussed the concept, it decided on a less formal approach. Mr. Kelly asked who would fill out the questionnaire: Whoever happened upon it? Ms. Newbre said it would be used during the Speakers Bureau. Mr. Kelly had serious concerns about that approach. He suggested that if such a questionnaire was to be used, it should be used in conjunction with a sampling technique to gauge citizen sentiment. He did not think the cost would be high. Dr. Katul said the commission discussed the questionnaire extensively and he had shared Mr. Kelly's concerns. The commission agreed that the questionnaire would be more of an extension of the public forum format. Mr. Katul noted the City's plan to conduct a statically valid survey on similar issues. Mr. Brown added that cost was an issue; the initial cost quoted to the commission was between $6,000 and $8,000. He said the commission did not intend to interpret the results from the questionnaire as though it was statistically valid. Mr. Kelly did not think the cost was much in the context of the entire department budget. Ms. Parisi said that the commission did not feel it was its role to be doing a scientific study of citizens' perceptions, believing that was more of a department task. The commission was trying to expand its normal public input process to give as many people an opportunity to comment. Having the questionnaire to hand out at the Speakers Bureau would give the commission a thumbnail sketch of people's knowledge and perceptions of community policing. Demographics would be collected to ensure the commission could target under represented audiences for input in the future. She emphasized the commission would not report the results as though they were statistically valid. Ms. Taylor thought the questionnaire sounded more like a sampling than a survey, and she thought it would be fine as long as everyone acknowledged it was not a survey. She encouraged the commission to do outreach to the neighborhood organizations. Mr. Meisner cautioned the commission that the input it received would be self-selected, and said some mechanism to solicit input from the broader community was needed. He suggested a MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 4 Work Session questionnaire in the newspaper or leaving them for people to complete at public places. He said the commission needed to "get out in the community" and give people an opportunity to provide input. Ms. Newbre noted that the issue had been tabled at the last commission meeting. Mr. Meisner suggested that the questionnaire could be reprinted in neighborhood newsletters to reach beyond the meetings where a few self-selected individuals were in attendance. Mr. Hursey emphasized that the commission had been looking for ways to solicit input from the community, leading to the concept of the questionnaire. Mr. Kelly expressed concern that the commission's work plan related to community policing was starting at Step 1, and not taking advantage of the work that had already been done. He specifically referred to the Community Involved Policing Action Plan. Mr. Laue reminded Mr. Kelly that the plan had been developed in the context of reductions necessitated by Ballot Measure 47/50, and its focus was on steps that required no cost to implement. He thought many of those steps had been implemented already. Mr. Laue suggested the impetus for community policing was to be found in the Department of Public Safety's Long-Range Plan, developed in 1992. Unfortunately, community policing was estimated to cost an additional $4 million annually, and the council was not able to add more than $500,000 annually to the department budget. Since that time calls for service had increased, adding to department costs. He did not think that anyone in the department or commission wanted to discuss community policing in broad or general terms, but in terms of what could be done next, and within the staffing and funding constraints that existed. Regarding the subject of surveys, Mr. Laue said he firmly believed in statistically valid surveys. However, such surveys cost money and took time, and a series of surveys had already occurred at considerable expense. He did not believe the questionnaire the commission planned was intended to do be representative, and its results could be used in tandem with other, statistically valid survey instruments. Mr. Laue did not think community policing was at the forefront of people's thinking when they considered public safety, and believed from past efforts that engaging the community would be a challenge. Mr. Kelly encouraged the commission to take advantage of the work that had been done to the greatest extent possible. Ms. Nathanson thought the community would not react well if the City went to it again and said "what do you want?" People had been asked before about their feelings about community policing, and would now want to know what was being done about it. She thought the results would be apathy at best or anger at worst. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the commission and staff identify the logical next steps in community policing that existed in current planning and go out to the public with that information and fine-tune it. If there was nothing in the prior plans that the City could afford to implement, she believed that the City avoid further irritating the public by asking it about something that could not be accomplished. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman, a member of the Police Commission, said that the commission had discussed how to frame the questions to the public, but she did not think the questionnaire did a good job in framing those questions. She suggested using the Community Involved Policing Plan and 1992 long-range plan to create an outline of the strategies identified in the past and solicit public input on those strategies. Mr. Laue agreed with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson. He said the community's expectations should not be raised unnecessarily, but he did believe the public needed to be educated about community policing and what the needs were in the community. People were more concerned about things such as the traffic traveling through their neighborhoods. He said that it would take a significant commitment of resources to do the types of things that needed to be done, such as the preventative drug treatment mentioned by Mr. Kelly. He did not think the City could ask the citizens to implement a community policing plan until it could do reactive or responsive policing better. Mr. Meisner reiterated that distributing questionnaires only at the commission meetings invited responses only from those with an agenda and a reason to be at the meeting, not the broad public. He urged the commission not to do the questionnaire if that was the approach planned. Mr. Meisner expressed the hope that staff could put price tags on some of the proposals the commission would ask the public to react to. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of others. She thought starting with a purpose was a good idea, and again endorsed the commission going to neighborhood groups and printing information in neighborhood newsletters. She liked Mr. Meisner's idea of putting a price tag on proposals. Mr. Denner said that citizens sometimes forget that the City had taken some significant steps toward community policing, and the department had listened to the public and tried to find a way to implement their suggestions. He pointed to the existence of the Police Commission as demonstrative of the department's interest in responding to the public. There were now more ways for community members to speak to police officers and meet with them. Mr. Denner reiterated that the department had made real progress. Ms. Newbre said community policing was not one specific program, but rather an approach to policing that customized it to the needs of the community. She agreed with Mr. Denner that progress had been made, and there was a great deal occurring in terms of community policing. She also agreed with Mr. Laue that the improvements to be made had a price tag attached. Mr. Brown summarized the council's input as "let's not set the community up for an expectation we can't meet," and to use the prior plans and studies as the foundation for the commission's work. He expressed appreciation for the council's remarks and continuing support. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Nathanson indicated appreciation for Mr. Denner's remarks regarding the progress that had been made. She acknowledged the degree of internal department change that had occurred. Ms. Nathanson thought it regrettable that budget cuts necessitated the elimination of the annual report, and wished there were more citywide newsletters to provide the kind of public outreach and education that had been mentioned by many during the discussion. She asked staff to consider how the City could more effectively use the many City and EWEB newsletters that were distributed to the public. Ms. Bettman said community policing involved not just the Police Department but other departments as well, and some of the strategies associated with community policing might come from other department budgets. For example, citizens complained about speeding in the neighborhoods, and that was a public safety issue with a transportation solution. She requested council comment about other items on the work plan. Mr. Meisner had no comments on other work plan items. In terms of using resources effectively, Mr. Meisner expressed hope that the commission did not consider itself bound by previous plans. He called for an open and creative look at the issues involved with community policing. Ms. Taylor concurred with Mr. Meisner. She reiterated her interest in using neighborhood newsletters to get out news about the City. She perceived community policing both as an attitude and a way of doing things. Dr. Katul expressed gratitude for the dialogue and thanked the councilors for their comments. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to approve the Police Commission FY02 work plan. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. The council took a brief recess and reconvened. Mr. Pap6 left the meeting during the recess. Ms. Taylor called attention to the presence of the high school students from Cottage Grove, and noted that they had suggested sending the commission's questionnaire to citizens with the voters pamphlet, an idea that she endorsed. C.Work Session: Sister City Program Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office joined the council for the item. She provided background on the Sister City Program, noting the City had four official sister cities, with the first established in 1961 (Chinju, Korea) and the last (Irkutsk, Russia) in 1989. The sister city agreements are signed by representatives of both cities and commit the cities to a mutual relationship. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Walston said that as a result of past budget reductions, the City's Sister City Program, overseen by a Sister City Commission, was eliminated and the Eugene Sister City Foundation subsequently formed to oversee the four sister city committees. Ms. Walston said the City provided $15,000 in funding to the foundation the first year; that amount had been reduced each year until 1999, when the council increased the contract to $30,000. The current contribution was $30,000 annually, with the caveat that half of that funding must be matched by the foundation at a 3:1 ratio. Every dollar raised by the foundation was matched by $3 City dollars. Eugene Sister City Foundation members Jim Dougher, John Simpson, Ken Ramsing, Margie Harris, and Fred Andrews were introduced by Ms. Walston. Mr. Meisner noted other in-kind donations from the City and requested information on other costs, such as the time spent on the program by Ms. Walston and Mayor Torrey's assistant. He asked Ms. Walston to estimate total program costs for the City. Ms. Walston estimated average total City costs at $5,000, including trips for elected officials and out-of-pocket expenses, such as gifts. She indicated that staff time was not included in that estimate. Mr. Meisner said the foundation representatives stressed the official nature of the sister city relationships while at the same time arguing that the foundation did not owe the City a work plan. He questioned if the program was better operated by the City or a private foundation, and if the foundation was to run the program, should the foundation submit a work plan that must be approved by the council in an annual reporting process. Ms. Walston said it was difficult to make that evaluation. She reiterated that the City reduced the program to reduce its costs. Mr. Meisner said that, given the City was devoting considerable staff time to the effort, he questioned the foundation approach. Ms. Walston said that there was a contract for services that outlined the differing responsibilities of the parties to the contract, and that had become a sort of work plan for the foundation. She concurred with a statement from Mr. Meisner that the contract responsibilities were general in nature. Mr. Kelly thought it more important than ever to increase understanding between cultures, and the Eugene Sister City Program was a big part of that. He believed the amount the City was spending now was far short of the amount spent when the City operated the program. Given that the program was a government-to-government obligation at its root, the City needed to accept the obligation or terminate the City's sister city relationships. He suggested that the foundation would like some level of predictability in funding. He indicated that he would have offered a motion to provide that predictability except for the fact three councilors and the mayor were absent. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the City could, at minimum, provide airport parking vouchers to the foundation volunteers to recognize their need for frequent visits to the airport. Ms. Nathanson questioned what was being accomplished by the foundation and how that could be shared with the community. While she appreciated the foundation newsletter, she questioned how much of the community was being reached. Was the program about travel or was it about MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 8 Work Session education; did each sister city committee have its own focus? Ms. Nathanson asked whether it was time for the council to discuss whether the Eugene Sister City Program could evolve into something else. She had faith in the program and its mission but thought more could be happening. She asked if anyone had discussed how to foster collaboration between the foundation and other organizations with overlapping interests or similar activities to determine if combining certain costs, such as those for location and staff, might not realize some greater results than could be achieved now. She suggested the groups meet together in a summit format. Ms. Bettman asked how resources were distributed among the four sister city committees and if the four committees were equally active. Regarding Ms. Nathanson's suggestion for airport parking vouchers, Ms. Bettman assumed that the foundation budget would cover such expenses. Ms. Walston responded that the foundation spent the City's contribution on staff, rent, and mailings. Each committee applied to the foundation for funds throughout the year. She believed the funds were generally equally split among the four committees. Ms. Walston said the committees differed in terms of activity levels. Some, such as the Kakegawa, Japan committee, had more frequent delegations to and from their sister city. She did not think that the foundation reimbursed volunteers for expenses such as airport parking costs, but asked members of the foundation to verify that. Ms. Nathanson noted information related to the allocation of resources included a recent foundation annual report. Ms. Taylor liked Ms. Nathanson's suggestion for airport parking vouchers. She believed that the City needed to be more aware of how important its sister city relationships were, particularly for young people. She said the program fostered international understanding between peoples. Ms. Taylor encouraged councilors to visit the foundation's new offices in downtown. She invited comments from the foundation president, Mr. Dougher. Mr. Dougher thanked the council for its support. He said that the foundation had recently had to relocate to a higher cost location because its former office site was being demolished. The foundation felt the additional cost was worth it because it was responding to council direction to become more visible. The relocation had the additional benefit of bringing more people to downtown. Mr. Dougher invited questions. Mr. Meisner endorsed the foundation's move, adding that it would be telling if no one went there, although he did not think that would be the case. He wanted the public to get the same information the council received in the form of the newsletters. Mr. Meisner suggested they be sent with utility billings annually and with City newsletters. He wanted the foundation to have greater public support. He did not think the annual booth at the Asian Celebration was sufficient public outreach. Mr. Meisner endorsed Ms. Nathanson's suggestion for collaboration with other groups with a related purpose. He did not think the council needed to be involved in that effort, MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 9 Work Session but suggested that City staff, Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County, and the school districts could be involved. Ms. Taylor noted the past involvement in the Eugene Sister City Program by the school districts and the fact the convention and visitors association was represented on the foundation's board of directors. Ms. Nathanson elaborated on her suggestion, saying that she was talking about a meeting where participants discussed how to combine resources and collaborate in tangible ways to increase the effectiveness of all the organizations involved. She hoped there was an opportunity to begin such a discussion. Mr. Andrews reported that ten years ago there had been cooperation between the local Rotary Club and the Irkutsk Sister City Committee when the Rotary Club wished to establish a branch in that community. Such a club was subsequently established. He noted programs established at the library by the foundation. Mr. Andrews reminded the council that the program was established by the City, and was not just the purview of a "bunch of warm, fuzzy citizens." Ms. Nathanson thanked Mr. Andrews for the examples. However, she was trying to respond to the letter sent by Mr. Dougher to the council regarding the foundation's financial status. She was looking for ways the foundation could share resources in a tangible, lasting way to solve its budget problems. Ms. Taylor believed that the foundation was carrying out a City duty and she thought the program should have more staff time devoted to it. She acknowledged the budget constraints that led to the establishment of the foundation. Ms. Harris spoke of the varying levels of participation on committees and the varying number of volunteers, and noted the foundation's attempts to get greater publicity. Mr. Meisner responded, saying that in the absence of greater public support, the media would not pay the foundation much attention. He observed that all those who lobbied the City Budget Committee for additional foundation funding were members of foundation or the committees, not the general public. He said that he did not need the newsletter; the public does. Mr. Meisner encouraged the foundation to find a way to get the newsletter to the public. Ms. Walston requested any further information requests for staff follow-up. There were no requests. Ms. Taylor thanked members of the Eugene Sister City Foundation for their work. D. Work Session: Contingency Account Ms. Walston was present for the item. She provided background on the past use of the Contingency Account and the subsequent establishment of the City Council Contingency Account MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 10 Work Session and the development of criteria against which to evaluate requests for funding from the account. There was now a form applicants must fill out for funding requests and fairly strict guidelines that guide the allocation process. The account was designed to fund small, one-time grants to community organizations. Ms. Walston referred the council to the list of requests for funding since 1999 included in the meeting packet, and noted that the council had set aside $60,000 for fiscal year 2002. There was currently $451,000 in the City's General Fund Contingency Account, including the $60,000. She noted that an estimated $196,000 in election expenses would need to be paid for from the Contingency Account. Mr. Meisner said he solicited input about the item from Mr. Pap~ before his departure, and Mr. Pap~ indicated that rather than a contingency account, he would suggest that the council establish a small emergency fund for documented emergency needs from community nonprofit groups and organizations; all other requests for funding would go through the annual budget cycle or the Human Services Commission (HSC), depending on the nature of the request. Mr. Meisner indicated his concurrence with Mr. Papa's preferences. He thought that currently, funding requests took up the council's and staffs time unnecessarily. Mr. Meisner added that in some cases, he experienced a sense of "emotional blackmail"; council opposition to a funding request was interpreted as opposition to a group or its general purpose, and that was not the case. Mr. Kelly disagreed with Mr. Meisner, saying that the contingency account gave the council a way to use a comparatively small amount of money to leverage other financial resources, making a large difference to small local nonprofits. He thought the existing process had worked well, and pointed out there had not been an overwhelming volume of requests. Mr. Kelly said with regard to the HSC, it appeared from the Contingency Account allocations made between 1999 and 2000 that there were very few for projects of the type in which the commission would be involved in. Mr. Kelly agreed it took time for the staff and council to review the applications, but it would take the same effort to process the requests through the budget process. He further pointed out there was currently no mechanism for the public to provide input into the budget before it was drafted. It could only be modified once the manager presented his draft budget. Ms. Nathanson referred to a memorandum to the mayor and council she authored in February 2001, in which she suggested that contingency account requests related to human services be first referred to the HSC for review. She reiterated her recommendation that if the council continued to have such an account, the HSC review human services-related requests. Ms. Nathanson believed that the council was not the correct venue for the requests it received. She was not sure what the right venue was. She concurred with Mr. Meisner about the time it took to process the requests and the element of emotional blackmail involved. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that the City's funds often leveraged other resources, but said the council often spent as MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 11 Work Session much time discussing small requests as it did on large policy issues, and she preferred to give the time to large policy issues. Ms. Taylor said she supported many of the funding requests included in the list when they came up and doubted they would have been funded through the regular budget process. She suggested that the services overseen by the HSC should be eliminated from council consideration, and concurred with Mr. Meisner's remarks regarding the element of emotional blackmail involved. She thought the programs seeking funding did good work, but they should not be financed from the contingency account. Ms. Bettman was not sure how she felt about the issue because she had not seen enough requests to reach a conclusion during her tenure on the council. She said there was ambiguity about the human services-related requests, but suggested that could be remedied by asking them to go the HSC and get a recommendation from that body about the request. Ms. Bettman liked the idea the council could leverage small amounts of money with big results. Referring to the issue of emotional blackmail, she said that such requests were not the only occasion the council had to make hard choices; she believed if it considered the requests in light of the criteria, the outcome would be a good one. Ms. Bettman was not prepared to act on the issue tonight. She suggested the possibility of incremental adjustments to the process, but generally thought it a good process. Mr. Meisner noted that several of the requests funded by the council might have been eligible for funding through the Neighborhood Matching Grant Program, and asked for staff follow-up on whether that was the case. Mr. Meisner had mixed feelings about an HSC review of funding proposals. He was concerned that the HSC would always indicate that the City should approve such funding proposals because that would allow it to direct its dollars to other purposes. He thought an emergency funding program and the regular budget process could be used effectively to address the need that existed. Ms. Bettman clarified that she was proposing that the City seek input from the HSC about why a funding request made to the City was not funded by the commission during its regular budget process. Mr. Meisner did not want to create an additional burden for HSC members in having to justify why each rejected request was not funded. E. Consent Calendar 1. Approval of Minutes July 25, 2001, Work Session August 12, 2001, Work Session August 22, 2001, Work Session August 29, 2001, Work Session 2. Approval of Tentative Agenda MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 12 Work Session 3. Approval of Changes to HOME Investment Partnership Program--Funded Housing Projects Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Meisner had changes to the minutes, and pulled Item 1. Ms. Nathanson pulled Item 3. Ms. Bettman asked that the reference to "State funds" in paragraph 10 on page 6 of the July 25 minutes be changed to "DLCD [Department of Land Conservation and Development] funds." Ms. Bettman asked that the second sentence in paragraph 5 on page 7 of the August 12 minutes be changed to read: "She commented that in our attempts to balance development and the environment, the environment never wins." Mr. Meisner noted he was incorrectly reflected as present at the July 25 work session in the minutes. Regarding the minutes of the August 22, 2001, work session, Mr. Kelly requested that the next to- last paragraph on page 2 be revised to read (struck text deleted, italicized text added): "Mr. Kelly o~m,,~l'-~,~,~ -,, ~ ~'v ';".~" said it made sense to have. .. "He also asked that the phrase "ballot explanation" be changed to "ballot question" in the motion reflected in paragraph 7 on page 6. Mr. Kelly noted that the reference to Ballot Measure 20-53 on page 10 of the minutes should actually refer to Ballot Measure 20-54. Ms. Taylor determined there were no objections to the suggested corrections. Items 1 and 2 of the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 5:0. Ms. Nathanson determined from Linda Dawson of the Planning and Development Department that the difference between the HOME allocation for the cancelled West 11th Mixed Use Project and the amount transferred to the Aurora Downtown Midrise Project would be returned to the funding pool and available for the next Request for Proposals. Ms. Nathanson further determined that the housing units planned remained at 54. Ms. Nathanson referred to the Sheldon Village Project, and asked if the reduction in units from 85 to 78 meant there would be more open space or if units would be larger. Ms. Dawson clarified that the project sponsors learned that the addition of more open space made the project more competitive for State tax credits. The State process was a highly competitive one. Mr. Kelly added that the project sponsors learned, after the application for tax credits was rejected, one of the factors driving the decision was that the project was too dense. Ms. Nathanson asked if the MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 13 Work Session ratings were based on some type of "boilerplate criteria" that did not include, for example, factors such as the location of a park across the street. Mr. Kelly said the evaluation process was somewhat of a "black box." Ms. Nathanson flagged the issue for land use staff and Ms. Dawson to follow-up on. She thought that some of the available community amenities could be comparable to what was on-site. Mr. Kelly agreed. Item 3 of the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 5:0. F. Public Forum Ms. Taylor called for participation in the Public Forum. She reviewed the rules of the forum. Nathan Fendricks, Brenners Furniture, 151 West 8th Avenue, discussed the damage suffered at Brenners Furniture Store, where vandals had etched the windows and other surfaces with acid. The glass cannot be repaired and must be replaced, and it was very expensive to do so. He termed the type of graffiti left at the store "the wave of the future," and said something must be done to combat it. He had heard there was quite of bit of such vandalism occurring in Eugene. He suggested etching cream should be a controlled substance, and that people should be required to show identification and sign for etching cream. Mr. Fendricks thought the vandalism was way beyond being a misdemeanor, and called for more police patrols in the downtown area. Ms. Taylor called for council response. Mr. Meisner said that he had seen such damage before; the first time had been at the Whiteaker Public Safety Station. Given that, he did not know how to monitor the situation more closely. He asked for staff follow-up on making the etching cream a controlled substance, noting that the issue was broader than Eugene given that people could purchase the materials at locations outside the city limits. Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Meisner. He liked the idea of controlling the sales of etching cream and endorsed Mr. Meisner's request for follow-up. He also agreed that the County and Springfield would have to pass similar laws for the City's prohibition to be effective. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2001 Page 14 Work Session