Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly noted a corrections to page 7 of the minutes of the July 24 work session, saying that <br />paragraph 7 should indicate that Mayor Torrey voted in support of, not in opposition to, the <br />motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor noted a correction to page 4 of the minutes of the July 31 process session, asking that <br />the statement that she did not want to place any time limits on speakers be deleted. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor noted that Mr. Fart was incorrectly listed as absent at the work session of August 2. <br /> <br />Regarding the later hearing, Ms. Nathanson asked if the City Council could hear testimony prior <br />to 7:30 p.m. Mr. Klein said that the council could add an item to this meeting even though it was <br />not on the agenda. The council could start taking testimony early, but if the hearing was <br />completed by 7:30 it would still need to hold a public hearing at that time. He said that he would <br />not offer the same advice for a hearing involving a land use matter. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked the council to discuss the schedule of future agenda items. Mr. Kelly <br />suggested that agenda be approved with addition of a work session on October 23 regarding <br />stormwater acquisitions. He said that the council had not been approving its agendas, and <br />suggested that rather than approving the entire schedule, in the future the council approve only <br />the changes. Mr. Carlson said that at the current time, changes to the agenda were not tracked, <br />and the schedule changed frequently. Mr. Kelly suggested that legislative format be employed so <br />that the council could see the additions and deletions. Mr. Carlson said that staff would consider <br />how to implement Mr. Kelly's suggestion. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor believed that a work session on the parking program should be on the schedule. Mr. <br />Carlson said that the item was a current council assignment related to the parking program, with <br />a due date of November 30. No work session had been scheduled yet, and he anticipated that at <br />least part of the issue would be addressed through a memorandum. He also thought a work <br />session should be scheduled. Mayor Torrey cautioned councilors that the schedule was very full <br />and there were no large blocks of time available. Mr. Rayor recommended January 17 as the <br />first available work session date. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ raised an issue of the extended meeting the previous week and said that he thought <br />that it was to occur with a vote of the council. Mayor Torrey agreed. He said that he counted on <br />the council officers to contact other councilors for a vote on whether to extend work sessions. Mr. <br />Pap~ said that he had neither received notice nor been asked to vote. Ms. Taylor agreed. She <br />said that she had sometimes stayed when she had other commitments, and it was not always <br />easy. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that the issue raised the issue of communication between staff and the <br />council and the councilors with each other. She had seen the e-mail message and was aware <br />the meeting would be extended. She said that on occasion, she had left extended work sessions <br />to attend to other commitments. She was concerned about e-mail communication as it had <br />increased expectations among the staff and public that were not satisfied. Constituents might <br />expect that the councilors read their e-mail almost when it was received. She often did not see <br />e-mail messages the evening before or the day of a meeting as she did not have access to her <br />City e-mail during the work day. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor agreed with Ms. Nathanson. He said that he needed to know quite a bit in advance if <br />meetings were to be extended such as the Wednesday or Thursday prior to the meeting. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 11, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />