04/27/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

parameters of the project and its consistency with the work program, based on adopted goa 1 s. 4It Ms. Stewart said another point staff believed necessary to address was that the renewal agency, as currently structured, did not include projects that were included in the Capital Improvments Program. She said staff proposed that Downtown Commission recommendations for projects in the CIP would come to the counci 1 as renewa 1 agency and then go through the Budget Commi ttee and council processes. Ms. Stewart said staff also recommended that the Downtown Commission develop an annual report and forward it to the agency for adoption. She added that the report would IIclose the loop" on work program goals and implementation and would provide for evaluation or modification of time lines. Ms. Stewart said other suggestions included having the chair or vice chair of the Downtown Commission attend a monthly council lunch meeting for informal communication, and forwarding to the council agendas, staff notes, minutes, and perhaps a meeting summary. She said staff could continue to use the weekly newsletter for updates. Ms. Stewart said additional recommendations included an annual meeting of the Downtown Commission and the Planning Commission and regular committee activity reports at each Downtown Commission meeting, to be included in minutes and in meeting summaries. e Mr. Holmer asked whether the boundaries of the Downtown Commission and the renewa 1 agency were the same, except for the ri verfront. Ms. Stewart sa i d they were not the same, because the boundary of the renewal agency was much smaller than that of the Downtown Commission, which extended from the park to Lincoln and Lawrence and'as far as the river. Ms. Bascom said she found it helpful and interesting to learn that CIP projects from the Downtown Commission had gone directly into the CIP, and not to the council, which she said explained some of the council's frustration in discovering those projects, Ms, Schue said she preferred to receive the Downtown Commission minutes, but unless the summaries had some other use, they did not need to be prepared for her. Mr. Hoimer said he concurred. Responding to Ms. Ehrman1s question, Ms. Stewart said State law mandated the existence of the agency as long as the district existed. Ms. Bascom sa i d she had found the Downtown Commi 55 ion mi nutes helpful in understanding the discussion of the EWEB plaza project. Mr. Holmer asked whether consideration had been given to tightening the relationship between the Downtown Commission and the Planning Commission in other ways, such as havi ng the Downtown Commi ss i on report to the Pl anni ng Commission. Mr. Farkas said those two commissions had different functions and purviews, with the Planning Commission providing advice on City-wide issues, while the Downtown Commission as an advisory body was more similar to a special-authority neighborhood group. e MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session April 27, 1987 Page 4