Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Ms. Taylor commented that if the changes to the base document were drastic it should be subject to another <br />public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said that changes were likely the result of input at a public forum and already sufficiently <br />processed. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested that changes non-substantive changes such as correcting grammar and typographical <br />errors, which did not require a motion, should be presented in legislative format in the base document to <br />assure that all changes were identified. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy did not feel that it was necessary to hold public hearings subsequent to amending the base <br />document as those changes typically resulted from the initial hearing. She said constituents still had an <br />opportunity to express their opinions about the changes to councilors via email or other forms of communi- <br />cation before the council took action. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy asked for head nods from councilors to indicate agreement with the procedures for amending <br />proposed ordinances. There were no objections. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked that when there was an informal agreement instead of a formal vote, lack of a stated <br />objection should be taken as agreement. <br /> <br /> <br />Topic: Adding provisions to ordinances without council direction <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman used the elections ordinance to illustrate why this topic was different from the preceding topic. <br />She said a change to the ordinance had been discussed by the council and when the document was returned, <br />it contained two new provisions: the change discussed by the council and a change generated by staff <br />without discussing it with the council. She said the intent of the topic was to assure that provisions to <br />ordinances were addressed by the council in a work session before they came before the council for action. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark felt that it was sufficient for the provision to be identified in the document and AIS as recom- <br />mended by staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka also was satisfied with clearly identifying any staff proposed provisions as such in the <br />document. He asked if the issue was that staff should not be proposing provisions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman objected to bundling provisions proposed by staff with those requested by the council as she <br />felt it was confusing and placed the onus on the council to separate the issues without an opportunity to <br />discuss some of them in a work session. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy said that occasionally there was a timing issue that required action and staff could alert the <br />council to that in advance. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman that staff proposals should be presented as separate items and the <br />council notified if there were any time sensitive issues. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />