Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to remove the word “residential” from Item 9. Mr. Kelly asked for clarification on the work item as he understood the task was only to conduct a scope of work, not begin a residential land inventory. Ms. Colbath indicated the item was only scoping, not an inventory. Mr. Kelly said he would vote against the amendment on that basis. Ms. Ortiz requested permission to change her vote on the Ms. Taylor’s motion. There were no objections. The motion still failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz voting in favor. Ms. Bettman said it was out of order for the commission to put work on a residential buildable land analysis, even just the scoping, in the work plan before the council had held a work session. She said it was a planning issue regulated by State statute as opposed to being preempted by the Planning Commission; it did not belong in the work program as it was addressed within other regulatory procedures. She would not endorse the item as it would set the wheels in motion to make it happen. Mr. Pryor said he saw no problem with gathering information about what resources would be required to conduct the analysis; the knowledge would be helpful. Mr. Kelly said he would support the amendment as a work session on the issue could return the item to the work plan. The vote on the motion to amend was tied, 4:4; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Tay- lor, and Mr. Kelly voting in favor; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Papé voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition, and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. The main motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Colbath commented that the commission hoped to use effective communications to bring information to the council and receive feedback. She said that joint meetings were extremely useful for strategic discus- sions of issues such as opportunity siting and infill standards and helped the commission better meet council expectations and forecast major policy issues and trends. She said the commission was committed to creative public involvement like the open forums with citizens, which enhanced collaboration with stakeholders. She indicated that the commission would also continue with informal communications such as the “council buddy” system. She thanked the council again for the opportunity to have a joint meeting. Ms. Taylor added her thanks to the Planning Commission for its work. Mr. Belcher drew the council’s attention to Item 12.i, which referenced assessing the extent to which the City had a clear and widely supported vision and strategy for achieving it. He said without a vision and strategy it would be difficult to move beyond arguing disparate opinions about growth management policies. Mr. Papé expressed his appreciation for the “buddy system” as it had helped him better understand some of the complex issues facing the community. MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 8 Work Session