Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly endorsed the commission's review of proposed code changes. He said that <br />the commission, because of its broad diversity of membership, could be a first check-in <br />for the public on proposed code changes. Regarding unforeseen issues that might <br />arise, Mr. Kelly asked the commission if there would ever be an unforeseen issue that <br />needed attention before the commission could check in with the council about adding it <br />to the work program. He suggested that with the concurrence of a majority of <br />commissioners, the commission could "get in front of the council" in such cases and <br />begin to work. Mr. Meisner believed that the answer to Mr. Kelly's question depended <br />on the demands the council made of the commission. He said that if the commission's <br />work load was full enough to require two meetings a month, it might be necessary to <br />create a mechanism such as that suggested by Mr. Kelly. <br /> <br />Charles Dalton of the Police Commission noted that many citizens had been waiting for <br />some time for the commission to be formed to address many high priority topics for the <br />community. He thought the commission should be proactive rather than reactive to <br />crisis. Mr. Dalton said that some of the existing issues were going to be very difficult to <br />address already. He was reluctant to add more work to the commission's work load <br />given that fact. Mr. Kelly said that the point was well-taken. Dr. Katul agreed with Mr. <br />Dalton's remarks. He emphasized the commission's interest in doing things well. He <br />said that if the commission found that there was an issue not on the work plan it <br />needed to address, it would check in with the council. He advocated for trust and <br />flexibility between the council and commission. <br /> <br />Commissioner John Brown wanted the commission to have the flexibility to respond to <br />public input. He emphasized the importance of being responsive to the public and <br />ensuring people feel heard. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee said it was his experience that work plans were flexible and could <br />accommodate minor new work items. <br /> <br />Dr. Katul clarified that issues such as the landlord-tenant repeat call response and <br />photo radar were not on the work plan because the commission was unsure the council <br />wanted it to address them. He said that they could be added or addressed on an ad <br />hoc basis. Mr. Smith said that such medium-level policy issues such as ordinance <br />review had not competed well as work plan items given the many higher profile issues <br />the public was waiting for the commission to address. He said the council could <br />request that the commission review ordinances after those high priority items were <br />completed, or request that the commission add meetings if an item could not be <br />deferred. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson suggested that Section 4(c) of the implementing ordinance provided <br />direction on the issue as it indicated that the commission was to review and make <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2000 Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />