Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Pape? asked if the City would be changing the manner in which it treated refinement plans if Option B was adopted. Ms. Brotherton explained that refinement plans had a regulatory effect and the plan under discussion was not amenable to such effect; therefore, it was not a “good fit” for a refinement plan. Mr. Pape? opined that if Option B moved forward, policies and consistencies must be established. Ms. Brotherton explained that if Option B was approved, the plan would be amended by resolution and would continue to follow the land use process; therefore, opportunities to speak to the resolution would ensue as it implemented Goal 8. She added that if the resolution was appealed, the City would defend it at the Land Use Board of Appeals. In response to a final question from Mr. Pape?, Ms. Weiss responded that the project list was separated from the plan prior to the Planning Commission’s review and following the meetings of the Mayor’s advisory committee. Parks and Open Space Director Johnny Medlin stated a committee meeting was held in July at which time the members were advised of the decision to separate the project list. Mr. Lidz clarified that from a legal point of view, whether the plan were to be adopted as a free- standing document or as a refinement to the Metro Plan, either action would be less significant than separating the project list from the plan. The motion passed 6:2, with Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voting in opposition. B. UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURE 20-106 (Police Auditor) Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston provided an overview of the AIS. She pointed out there was a coordinated effort to shape the recommendations for the council’s review and recognized the efforts of the Police Commission, chaired by Tim Laue, and the Auditor Recruitment Recommendations Team (ARRT), chaired by Senator Floyd Prozanski. She noted that ARRT crafted the job description, candidate profile, and recruitment options which were ultimately approved by the full commission. Ms. Walston referred to page 89 of the AIS and noted that the City Charter language included there was incorrect; the corrected language was inserted on page 96 and in the memorandum forwarded to the council by the Police Commission. Ms. Walston spoke to the decisions before the council and specifically referred to the timelines and the budget components. She explained that the Fiscal Year 2007 budget was being prepared and included funds for one-time start-up costs for the auditor and staff, as well as ongoing operational funds. However, Ms. Walston pointed out that there were no funds for the auditor recruitment and selection process in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget. She encouraged the council to make a decision on that issue as soon as possible, as well as on the recruitment/selection process. She asked if the council wished to be directly involved in the recruitment process and pointed out that the Police Commission articulated suggested options for this process. Ms. Walston noted the formal recommendation made by staff to appoint a subcommittee to assist with the recruitment process. The council proceeded to move forward with motions to begin the independent police auditor process as approved by the voters in November 2005. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session