CC Minutes - 04/21/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The motion to amend failed, 2:6; with Mr. Fart and Mr. Pap~ voting yes. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Helphand called the council's attention to its action priorities and criteria, and explained the scoring scheme. Mr. Kelly expressed frustration at the process used for ranking the council's priorities and said more weight should be placed on the criteria scores. Mr. Rayor drew a distinction between the criteria and the item's feasibility. Ms. Taylor said that was a good point, and the criteria scores were not as important as having included the item among a councilor's top ten. Mr. Meisner agreed with the council's comments, but added that he was not as troubled since these would be used as a springboard for the discussion. Ms. Nathanson said she concluded that the importance attached to a priority reflected what elected officials judged to be important to do on behalf of the community. She described the tension between "broad citywide impact" and items that would benefit a relatively small number of people, adding that often the indirect or secondary benefit to the City was large. Ms. Nathanson said she was unsure about even using the criteria scores. Mr. Fart said he considered results of the community survey in completing his ballot. Addressing a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Helphand said the priorities listed in the table received high or medium scores in either of the ways ordered. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern with the large number of items on the list, saying the council should focus on a few where progress could be made; otherwise, she concluded, the council was setting itself up for disappointment and frustration. Mr. Rayor suggested reducing the priority list, but maintaining a secondary list of those items dropped from the short list so as not to lose the history behind the priorities. Mr. Meisner expressed support for Mr. Rayor's suggestion and that of restructuring and rebalancing as services and priorities emerge over the next two years as suggested by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Meisner said it was important to have at least one action priority that related to each of the council's goals. Mr. Fart summarized the discussion by saying: 1) that some items should be dropped and moved to a secondary list, and 2) the council should concentrate on two to four items over the next two years. Mr. Kelly noted that some priorities on the list are already underway. Mr. Johnson said what was important to staff was that the council articulate and reach agreement on the level that priorities are accomplished, in addition to ongoing City operation activities. Minutes--Eugene City Council April 21, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m.