CC Minutes - 11/12/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

the Planning Commission Plus 3, for example, enjoyed a high level of staff support, and proposed that those resources could be shifted to produce more resources for the ClC. Mr. Fart did not think his amendment precluded what Ms. Bettman mentioned. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie, Mr. Rayor,, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Fart voting yes; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Pap~ voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the amendment, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Kelly indicated opposition to the main motion because of the City Council's lack of budgetary commitment to the ClC. He thought the recommended approach to funding would kill the proposal. Ms. Nathanson indicated regret that Mr. Kelly felt that way. She pointed out that the Budget Committee would receive a request to increase funding and staff support for the ClC. Mr. Rayor did not find the amendment an insult to the ClC. Mr. Pap~ said the ClC's function was not limited and he challenged it to do as much work as possible given its resources. He asked how citizen involvement could occur in the absence of the ClC. Mr. Carlson said that the State mandated citizen involvement for land use activities. The Planning Commission could perform that role, or another limited body could be charged with that work. Mr. Fart did not think it an insult to the ClC to accept its recommendation. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Levis said the Planning Commission had discussed taking on the role of citizen involvement and agreed that it did not have sufficient time to take on the role. She thought other items now done by the ClC would be slighted as a result. Ms. Bettman believed that it was a "slap in the face" to the members of the committee not to fund it at an appreciable level or give it a shot at funding through the budget process. Ms. Taylor thought the amendment to the motion killed the ClC's proposal but indicated support on the chance it might go somewhere in the Budget Committee. Ms. Nathanson said no one suggested eliminating the ClC. She suggested that the council should be more focused on outcomes. Perhaps the committee's mission should be adjusted. Mr. Hinkley said that the CIC reviewed proposals, found the gaps, and offered suggestions for changes so the public had the opportunity to offer input and believed that input had impact. Ms. Bridges said that the memorandum prepared for the council included information about the fact to maintain the status quo required a small increase in funding. She said that she felt she could only use so much of the Neighborhood Services budget to fund ClC activities, for example, the survey. The follow-up needed for the survey was not accomplished because of a lack of resources. The ClC as it now stands was "starved" and needed money. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2002 Page 8 Work Session