Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor said in the past, motions were not allowed at work sessions, but that was changed several years <br />ago, and the result was that there was little difference between a work session and a regular meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark liked the new form and agreed it should be used by all councilors when requesting a work session. <br />He asked what staff did to prepare for a work session once there was a successful poll. Mr. Ruiz replied it <br />was the responsibility of staff to provide information to the council to facilitate a meaningful discussion of <br />the topic, and having an understanding of the intent of the work session and desired outcome, made it easier <br />to provide that support. He asked councilors to also inform staff in advance, of the need for any specific <br />information or materials. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka affirmed the need to complete the form for all work session requests so councilors would have <br />enough information to prepare for the discussion. Mr. Ruiz said he would ask for the form to be completed <br />on any upcoming work sessions if staff needed clarification of the intent and desired outcomes. <br /> <br />Topic: Process for considering contingency requests <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka observed that there was no clear process of making requests for contingency requests. Mr. <br />Ruiz indicated he would distribute information on the use of contingency funds. He said the funds were <br />appropriated by the council as part of the budget at the beginning of the fiscal year and any unspent funds at <br />the end of the year were returned to the General Fund. <br /> <br />Jim Carlson, Central Services, explained that until around 2003, the council’s contingency was $400,000 <br />per year, of which $60,000 was dedicated to non-profits. He said there was a specific application process <br />associated with those funds; a budget reduction decision eliminated the $60,000 set aside for non-profits and <br />since then funds had been used for costs associated with special elections or other exceptional costs not <br />anticipated when the budget was developed. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said that information was sufficient and he did not need a memorandum on the subject. <br /> <br />Topic: Ways to achieve better communications with constituents (City Council newsletters, forums, e-mail <br />newsletters, etc.) <br /> <br />Discussion of this item was deferred. <br /> <br />Topic: Review effectiveness of thirdMonday meetings dedicated to public hearings <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested that if there was only one item scheduled for the public hearing on the third Monday <br />night it be shifted to a regular meeting if there was space on the agenda. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor stated she preferred to stay later on a regular meeting night than to have a third Monday night <br />dedicated to a public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he was in favor of re-scheduling an item to a regular meeting agenda unless the item was <br />controversial and a significant amount of testimony was anticipated. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz was not opposed to a third Monday meeting for the purpose of a public hearing to avoid extremely <br />long regular meetings, but was comfortable with granting the Mayor the discretion to move an item to a <br />regular meeting agenda as long as consistency in the council’s calendar was not jeopardized. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />