Laserfiche WebLink
sitting council determined what happened, so the council could begin its process earlier, acknowledging that <br />change could occur. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she found some of the action priorities more substantive than others in that some were <br />specific as to work activities and others employed more uncertain terms, such as "research" and "investigate." <br />The scale of the work program seemed to change from item to item, but she anticipated further refinement as <br />the process continued. Mr. Johnson said that often, staff did additional investigation for the purpose of <br />eliciting more direction from the council. He thought it a more appropriate approach than offering the council <br />solutions now. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked the council president to place a motion on the floor, and recommended the council amend <br />the motion to amend the work plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve the 2001-2002 City Council <br /> Goals Work Plan as recommended. <br /> <br />GOAL: SAFE COMMUNITY <br /> <br />Action Priority: Prioritize and Implement next steps in Community Policing <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner believed the goals were where the council placed extra effort and identified extra things to do, not <br />a "portmanteau" for everything the council wanted accomplish. The priority did not represent a new effort. <br />Mr. Meisner also did not perceive the implementation of AIRS improvement as a step toward implementing <br />community policing. He said that similarly, the work plan item, Determine the feasibility ora budget <br />indexing system for police staffing that is linked to community growth, did not bring the community closer to <br />community policing. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman shared Mr. Meisner's concerns. She said the action priority was a work plan item in its own <br />right. The priority was specific, but the associated work plan items were "fuzzier." She requested information <br />about the budget indexing system, as she did not recall discussion about such a system in the context of the <br />goals. Mr. Johnson clarified the work plan items were suggestions from staff that the council might not have <br />seen before; in terms of the budget indexing system, staff was stating that the resources to fully implement <br />community policing were not available, and one technique to address that was to develop and apply a budget <br />indexing system would allow more resources to be added to the service in the future. He said that staff would <br />make clear the link between the item and the budget. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thought the points made by Mr. Meisner and Ms. Bettman were well-taken. Regarding the indexing <br />system, he thought it was worthwhile to examine. However, he could only support it in the broader context of <br />all City services. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the work plan by moving the <br /> work plan item to the goal area Fair, Stable, and Adequate Financial Resources, and <br /> to broaden the departments and types of indexing. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly and indicated support for the motion. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />