Laserfiche WebLink
permanent improvement in the relationship, not in reacting to individual University projects and <br />events. She appreciated the individual action priorities and thought they were appropriate, but <br />called for the addition of a short paragraph explaining the problem being addressed or the general <br />points of the discussion. She believed that the summary missed the point of why she raised the <br />issue. <br /> <br />Referring to the proposed action priority on page 480 of the meeting packet, Evaluate and audit <br />A <br />performance and report outcomes, associated with the proposed objective related to ensuring <br />@ <br />effective and efficient local government services, Ms. Nathanson said she would have preferred <br />that the text indicate that was a continuing effort, not a new effort. <br /> <br />Referring to the action priority on page 479 of the council packet of concern to Mr. Meisner, <br />Evaluate the concepts and models of public-private competition and privatization, Ms. <br />A@ <br />Nathanson suggested that it be reworded to read Evaluate the concepts and models of public- <br />A <br />private partnerships, competition, and privatization. <br />@ <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not think there was consensus on any of the four objectives before the council. <br />She did not think the council did an adequate job of deciding its goals. She perceived the first half <br />of the meeting as a waste of time as the goals had not been discussed. She thought the <br />facilitator had been so focused on ensuring that the councilors be nice that she lost focus on the <br />A@ <br />councils goals. <br />= <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed that the time allotted for the item was insufficient. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor supported strengthening the Citys ties with the University and endorsed Mr. Kellys <br />== <br />remarks about taking advantage of the expertise of the University. <br /> <br />Speaking to the action priority related to the siting of the basketball arena, Ms. Taylor did not <br />perceive that as a City goal. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought the goals-setting process was to be a collaborative process whereby the <br />council could identify broad goals. However, there had been no consensus at the recent session, <br />merely councilors getting their pet project on the table, and then the majority dominated the vote. <br />She concluded that the session was both a waste of council time and the taxpayers money. Each <br />= <br />objective could have been the subject of a work session. Ms. Bettman said that if the council <br />decided to go forward with another session, the focus should be on where the council had <br />consensus, and that would require considerable background work. <br /> <br />Regarding the arena siting issue, Ms. Bettman believed that whatever the City did to facilitate the <br />siting process should be resource-neutral. <br /> <br />Speaking to the objective of effective and efficient local government services, Mr. Kelly said <br />several things listed raised during the session could be included in that area. He said not <br />reflected in the material before the council was the point made regarding the need to tie economic <br />development benefits to community benefits and priorities. He asked that be included. <br /> <br />Referring to pages 476-477, Mr. Kelly requested an explanation of why the milestone related to <br />the development of funding recommendations for children/youth out-of-school programs and <br />senior and disabled recreation services was projected for the third quarter of 2004, which was too <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 9 <br />C <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />