New Search
Hammitt, Bob <br /> From: Medlin, Johnny <br /> To: CEECRDW <br /> Cc: Hammitt, Bob; Roberts, Gloria (RIS1); Bohman, Jan (RIS1); Bowers, Lew (RIS1); <br /> Morgan, Dick (RIS1) <br /> Subject: RE: McNail Riley <br /> Date: Friday, December 03, 1993 8:23AM <br /> Richie, I agree sometimes these things get complicated when several people are dealing verbally with the same <br /> issue. <br /> This is where I believe we are with this: I did agree to pay the telephone costs until the non -profit had revenue. I <br /> also agreed that I would process the contract for Chris as a second signature to Abe's as long as it was clear <br /> your department was lead (although I don't think it to be needed, Chris will honor anything that Abe signs that we <br /> as staff have agreed on). 1 did not and don't feel that I can agree to any on -going grounds maintenance. The <br /> fact that pre merger PARCS was aware of this coming on line in the future was the only reason I agreed to pay <br /> the utilities and provide building maintenance without attached funding. However, as I'm sure as you find in your <br /> own department, restricted funding makes, what a couple of years ago might of been an incidental issue, today is <br /> a much larger issues. The merger into the Maintenance Division also included some fundamental changes in <br /> service philosophy from that of PARCS with the primary being we place first priority on maintaining the assets <br /> already in service vs. bringing new ones on line. As a part of The Eugene Decision process we were told to try to <br /> "doothings differently ". Regarding maintenance in specific we were told to try to get volunteers and non - profits to <br /> pick up maintenance items on things they are involved with as a means of making our resources go further. This <br /> seems a perfect opportunity to abide by that Council direction in that the original agreement to get the house <br /> included the neighborhoods agreement to provide this maintenance. We have already cut back and <br /> discontinued providing maintenance at some City Parks (Mulligan Park for instance in the same neighborhood <br /> turned brown this last summer due to no irrigation being provided). Taking grounds maintenance for <br /> McNail- Reiley doesn't make sense to me in light of the directions we have received and when we're doing this <br /> type of cuts in parks. <br /> As I discussed with Lew Bowers the other moming when he asked, if the neighborhood fails in their responsibility <br /> to maintain the grounds and it becomes a hazard then Public Works Maintenance would respond at your <br /> departments request to abate the hazard. If this occurred and your department felt the neighborhoods would <br /> never do as was agreed and you wanted us to take on -going responsibility, we could discuss it at that time which <br /> would likely result in our tuming in a service level increase (SLCM) through the FY -96 budget process to fund <br /> the work (and any other non budgeted items such as utilities). I do not feel we have a responsibility to set up a <br /> mechanism to do this prior to the neighborhoods failing to do this maintenance. From my point of view if they <br /> can't do as they have agreed, then a public failure would send a needed message about agreements of this <br /> nature and the liabilities involved. On the other hand, if they succeed the public message would be exactly the <br /> opposite and in favor of more such joint ventures. <br /> At this point Richie, I have discussed this with senior staff over here and see no ability for movement. My <br /> agreement to fund the telephones raised some eye brows over here as it is. I hope this has been helpful in <br /> clarifying my understanding of what I agreed to was. Thanks Johnny <br /> -- <br /> From: CEECRDW : <br /> Subject: McNailJ iiey <br /> Date: Thursday, December 02, 1993 5:OOPM <br /> FROM: RIS1(CEECRDW) <br /> TO: EUG003(CEWMJRM) DATE: 12 -02 -93 <br /> Page 1 <br />