Laserfiche WebLink
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process was essential before the project could move forward. She also <br />noted that the project was one of the types of projects envisioned in the Livable Cities legislation passed by <br />Congress the previous week. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not generally support the diversion of General Fund money to urban renewal but since the <br />money was already there and the project seemed worthwhile, she would support it. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown said that the Challenge Grant funds were already taken care of. If he thought the use of urban <br />renewal was necessary for the housing element of the project, he would support it, but the money was going <br />for matching dollars for the TIGER II grant. For that reason, he opposed it. He would not oppose land- <br />banking for low-income housing. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark noted the high priority the council placed on the Beltline project and asked if the TIGER II grants <br />could be used to realize that project in a quicker fashion. Mr. Inerfeld said the grant program was geared <br />toward mixed-use development and multi-modal transportation, and the Beltline project had not seemed like <br />the right fit. The City had requested federal funding for the Beltline project. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if the timeline for the two projects would be very different. Mr. Inerfeld said that it <br />depended on the receipt of funding. The City needed to work with the Oregon Department of Transportation <br />to find more money for the NEPA process for Beltline but he thought the challenge would be getting the <br />facility plan approved. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Brown voting no. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the URA and reconvened the meeting of the City Council. <br /> <br />9. WORK SESSION: <br />Police Auditor Evaluation Process <br /> <br />The council was joined by Human Resources Director Alana Holmes, who reviewed the options before the <br />council for evaluating Police Auditor Mark Gissiner. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark liked the criteria from the previous evaluation as a starting point. He wanted to see the <br />community stakeholder feedback first. He wanted to keep the criteria rankings for this year’s evaluation, <br />but wanted to move toward the four point metric used in the City Manager’s evaluation to more <br />mechanically and fairly evaluate the auditor. He asked if the panel could be done this year. Ms. Holmes <br />said yes, and said there were other sources for feedback that also made sense. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor agreed with the remarks of Mr. Clark and thought incorporating some of the changes to the City <br />Manager’s performance would be beneficial. He would move to a four-point appraisal system this year as <br />he found the metrics system challenging to use and there were other tools the City Council could employ. <br /> <br />Ms. Holmes said staff could look into that with the understanding the Civilian Review Board had already <br />done its rating using the existing ranking system. She said the council could either be aware of that or the <br />CRB could be asked to redo its rating. Mr. Pryor did not think that mattered. He said he would be <br />comfortable using both. The use of one did not preclude the shift to a four-point system. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka also liked the process the council used to evaluate the City Manager and had struggled with the <br />expectations metric. He preferred the four-point scale mentioned by Mr. Clark and agreed with Mr. Pryor <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—City Council April 14, 2010 Page 7 <br /> <br />