Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2009-01-07 4. w itk CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES January 7, 2009 O[GO$ Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 2:04 p.m. on January 7, 2009, in the Santiam Room, West End Building. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Johnson (4:17), Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney; Councilor Hennagin was excused Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Stephan Lashbrook, Assistant City Manager; Bob Galante, Galante, Redevelopment Director; Joe Hertzberg, Facilitator 3. ORIENTATION FOR NEW COUNCIL • Legal Structure Mr. Powell reviewed the legal structure of the City of Lake Oswego government. He explained that the City had a home rule charter with a traditional Council-Manager form of government. The 'general grant' charter gave the Council broad authority to do whatever a municipality could legally do. He recommended that the Council members read the City Council Rules of Administrative Procedure. He reviewed the different types of meetings, agenda basics, the Consent Agenda, and Citizen Comment. The Council discussed Citizen Comment. Mayor Hoffman recalled that, during the campaign, people complained about the three-minute time limit. Mr. Powell indicated that the Mayor could extend the time at his discretion. He explained to Councilor Tierney that the testimony time limits at public hearings related to the type of public hearing it was. He clarified that, with respect to Citizen Comment, the past Council's practice has been not to answer a question but to direct the citizen to staff. Councilor Jordan confirmed that the three-minute time limit had not been absolute. She held that the issue was one of fairness in allowing people to talk for the same length of time. Councilor Jordan pointed out that, if Council decided not to have the Tuesday morning meeting (when Council usually noted changes to the minutes), then a decision was needed on when Council members could make those changes. The Council discussed taking things off the Consent Agenda. Councilor Jordan recalled that the Council has taken large contract awards off, which Council had discussed at a previous study session, in order to make sure that the citizens understood that the Council had discussed it earlier and was not simply passing it through. Mayor Hoffman commented that he had pulled items that he wanted the public to know about, or to give staff an opportunity to explain, such as contract awards. Mr. McIntyre described the challenges of building an agenda. He pointed out that pulling things off the Consent Agenda lengthened the meetings. He spoke of the balance between consideration of the Council's time as public officials and the public's need to know about expenditures. He mentioned that pulling contract awards off the Consent Agenda had caught him by surprise when he came here. Mr. Hertzberg commented that the Council needed shared expectations regarding why someone might pull an item from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Lashbrook mentioned his experience with other City Councils that Councils usually mad poorer decisions after 10:30 p.m. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11 January 7, 2009 The Council discussed guidelines for Mayor Hoffman and Mr. McIntyre to use in deciding what to put on the Consent Agenda. Mr. McIntyre indicated that he would not put items on the Consent Agenda that he now knew were controversial. Councilor Tierney mentioned time and simplicity as criteria for building the agenda as a whole. Councilor Jordan pointed out that the Council did not have a procedure in place to dialog with the public regarding agenda items. She described the Consent Agenda items as information items. Mayor Hoffman commented that he and Mr. McIntyre would get a sense of what was important to the Council over the next several months as they developed the agendas. Mr. Powell discussed the rules of debate. He explained that, while Roberts'Rules of Order was the fall back, the Council did not strictly adhere to those rules. Rather, if the Council debate process was working fine, then it was working fine. He mentioned that the formal rules required a motion and a second prior to discussion, but he has not insisted on that procedure because this Council has worked by consensus. Councilor Jordan recalled that Council members asked for clarification from staff prior to a motion, and then discussed the question following the motion. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he would look to Mr. Powell for advice if needed, but, in his experience, they did not need a formal procedure to move things forward. Ms. Christie requested that motions be clearly stated, as opposed to a Council member saying during discussion `so moved.' Mayor Hoffman commented that he saw his role as summarizing discussion and encapsulating what the Council was trying to move forward. Mr. Powell indicated that, when they occurred, he would walk the Council through the procedure for friendly amendments. He discussed the procedure for reconsideration of a vote, noting that only a member who voted on the majority side could ask for reconsideration. He noted the rules for discussion. Mr. Hertzberg pointed out that an important element was trusting the chair to facilitate a fair debate, and not to allow one side to dominate the discussion. Mr. Powell discussed voting. He explained that a vote only passed with a majority of votes, such as 4-3. Both a tied vote with a member absent and a tied vote with a member abstaining failed because there was not a majority. He discussed the difference between recusing oneself from participating in the vote and abstaining from the vote, which was still participating in the vote. He noted that the Council policy on abstentions discouraged abstentions because the Council members were there to vote. He stated that it was important to distinguish between creating a Council subcommittee and asking Councilors to bring back information. Since a Council subcommittee would come back with a recommendation, the public meetings law requirements applied to subcommittee meetings. Th Council discussed the order of the vote. Ms. Christie indicated that the roll call vote order used to rotate, beginning with the Mayor and the Council President. Mr. Hertzberg said that they would come back to this topic later. Mr. Powell discussed how to handle motions. He explained to Councilor Tierney that the difference between 'suspend' and 'postpone' was that 'postpone' simply put something off to a later time, while 'suspend' (or'table') put an item on the shelf until someone who voted on the majority side moved to bring it off the shelf. Mr. Powell pointed out that only the Charter Officers (the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the Municipal Judge) actually worked directly for the Council. The Charter mandated that City Manager handle all employee affairs and prohibited City Council members from trying to influence his management of employees. He said that, as City Attorney, he represented the City and the Council collectively, and not individually. He indicated that he was also the Chief Legal Officer doing legal work for the City Manager. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 January 7, 2009 He clarified to Councilor Olson that a Council member could inform the City Manager of concerns he/she has heard about an employee, but he/she could not try to influence the City Manager in his handling of the personnel situation. Mr. Powell discussed Lake Oswego's status as a court of record. He reviewed how the Council exercised its powers by ordinance and resolution. He explained that, while the City Charter and ordinances mostly controlled governing the city, federal and state laws could override local laws. • Land Use Procedures Mr. Lashbrook discussed the regulation of land use through federal, state, and local laws. He spoke of the State administrative rules and the statewide planning program and goals. He mentioned the Big Look Committee's recent work on revising the procedures for implementing the statewide planning goals. He noted the Metro Charter and Code, the County coordination requirements, and the City's Charter and Comprehensive Plan. He indicated to Councilor Jordan that the Metro regional goals were not different from the statewide planning goals. He explained that the State land use system in Oregon expected cities and counties to figure out how to balance the 19 statewide planning goals in applying them to their jurisdictions through a Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances. Mayor Hoffman clarified that Metro's statutory authority was limited to issues of region-wide concern, including but not limited to housing, sensitive lands, parking, and traffic. Mr. Lashbrook concurred with Councilor Jordan that having both statewide planning goals and region wide planning goals created a confusing situation. He noted that another confusing factor was the Metropolitan Housing Rule, which did not come from the regional authority Metro, but rather from the State in an effort to regulate housing density throughout the state. He confirmed to Councilor Tierney that Metro had statutory authority from the State, in addition to a charter voted on by the people in the region. He mentioned that Metro was a unique entity in the United States. Mr. Powell observed that Metro's planning and enforcement authority was not well defined. He indicated that he did not know what would happen if a local jurisdiction refused to comply with Metro mandates. Mr. Powell discussed legislative and quasi-judicial hearings and procedures. He explained that in the first, the Council functioned as a legislature in adopting laws, while in the second, it functioned as a judge in determining whether an application met the stated criteria in the Code. He discussed the roles of the Planning Commission (legislative) and the Development Review Commission (DRC) (quasi-judicial). He emphasized that if an application on appeal from the DRC met the criteria set forth in the Code, then, no matter how much the public did not want the development, the Council had to approve it. He clarified to Councilor Moncrieff that, with respect to a quasi-judicial hearing, the Council members were supposed to stop someone from giving them information outside of the record, whether in conversation or through e-mails. If it unavoidably or accidentally happened, then there was a procedure for declaring ex parte contacts, but the idea was to avoid muddying the record. He indicated that a good rule of thumb was that if an issue was going to the DRC, then it was appealable to the Council, and Council members should avoid any discussion of it. Councilor Moncrieff asked how to handle the information on a potential quasi-judicial appeal, which she, and Councilors Tierney and Olson, might have received prior to being elected. Mr. Powell reviewed the ex parte contact declaration procedure used to cure the problem. He explained that the intent of the quasi-judicial hearing was to have a level playing field for all parties and to let the citizens participating in the hearing know what was in the minds of the judges. Councilor Jordan commented that often e-mails, which unexpectedly turned out to address a quasi-judicial item, contained no new information outside the record. However, a Council member should still declare them up front. Mr. Pow II suggested forwarding such e-mails to himself or to the planner for inclusion in the record. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 January 7, 2009 He explained that, even after making a final decision, the Council members still needed to avoid ex parte contacts because the losing party might appeal it to LUBA. Councilor Jordan pointed out that site visits could either be a deliberate viewing of the property in question or a familiarity with the property due to going by it every day. Mr. Powell explained that, while staff has given up on preventing the Council from making deliberate site visits, they did discourage those visits and required site visit declarations at the beginning of a hearing. He asked the Council members not to investigate specific evidence of the case, such as measuring where setbacks would be. Mr. Powell indicated that, while ex parte contacts were not supposed to happen, even LUBA recognized that they would occur, and has stated that it would not reverse a decision because of an ex parte contact. He emphasized the importance of declaring not only the contact (oral, written, and site visits) but also the substance of that contact in sufficient detail to allow the participants to rebut the information received. Councilor Tierney observed that it was difficult to make land use decisions without seeing the land. Mayor Hoffman concurred. He commented that the difficulty with site visits came when there was a traffic issue because traffic was not static like the land was. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that there were few instances outside land use that required a quasi-judicial hearing by the Council; noise abatement issues or an appeal on licenses/permits were two examples. Mr. Powell discussed bias, which was only a concern during quasi-judicial proceedings. He pointed out that a challenge of bias was difficult to prove. Only the individual could truly determine whether he/she was so vested in an issue, that he/she could not render an impartial judgment. Therefore, only the individual could disqualify him/herself for bias. Mayor Hoffman explained that what Council members have done in the past was to talk over their issues and concerns regarding a particular hearing with the Mayor or the City Attorney or the City Manager. Mr. Powell concurred. He discussed the issue of needing a quorum and a majority vote (one way or the other) as factors Council members have considered in addressing the issue of bias. Mr. Lashbrook reviewed the land use procedure timeline for a final decision on an application in light of the 120-day rule. Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Tierney that the 120 days included appeal time. Mr. Powell noted that the applicant could extend the 120-day rule, which was what often happened if the process ran up against the deadline. • Ethics Mr. Powell discussed the difference between an actual conflict of interest and a potential conflict of interest. He explained that a Council member had to announce the nature of the conflict of interest, and recuse him/herself for an actual conflict of interest, but not necessarily for a potential conflict of interest. He indicated that the two exceptions to recusing one's self over an actual conflict of interest where meeting the quorum or minimum number of votes necessary to make a decision requirement, and the class exception. He discussed the definition of'relative' and 'business' with respect to a conflict of interest. He reviewed how to handle conflicts of interest involving law firms (which often served as agents for clients on appeals), such as Councilor Jordan's husband's law firm. He indicated that he would recommend (at a minimum) the conservative approach of declaring a potential conflict of interest. Mayor Hoffman noted that he had to go through a complicated process in order to determine actual or potential conflicts of interests with respect to the law firm that employed him. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that, while it depended on the circumstance, it was unlikely that a customer of her husband's consulting firm appearing before the Council would represent a conflict of interest for her, unless the Council decision would benefit her husband's firm in some way. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 January 7, 2009 He discussed with Councilor Tierney the situation of an employee of a publically traded corporation who did not have $100,000 worth of stock in the company. He indicated that a ruling benefiting the Oregon City School District as a whole did not represent a conflict of interest for Councilor Olson, although a ruling that would benefit her or her position would be a conflict of interest. He encouraged the Council to read the booklet provided. Councilor Jordan recalled hearing at the League of Oregon Cities that compensation, including gifts given to relatives, was a big deal that people had to be careful about in order to avoid an ethics violation. Mr. Powell reviewed the current rules for gifts, compensation, not using a public office for private benefit, food and beverages, travel and lodging, entertainment, and honoraria. He encouraged the Council not to accept gifts (even under the $50 per year aggregate limit) from someone with a legislative or administrative interest that was distinct from the general public interest in a matter. He suggested that the Council review the chart handed out to identify such situations. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that if a public official exceeded the cumulative gift limit, then he/she has committed an ethics violation and could be charged and fined. Councilor Jordan noted that it was self-reporting. Mr. Hertzberg recessed the meeting for a break at 4:25 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 4:35 p.m. • Public Meetings Law Ms. Christie reviewed the rules for complying with the Public Meetings law with respect to open and closed meetings. She pointed out that, while the press could not report on the discussion of the subject of an executive (closed) session, it could report on off topic discussion. Therefore, it was important to stay on topic during an executive session. She noted that the Council could not make a decision in an executive session. She encouraged the Council members not to give the appearance of discussing City business at social gatherings. She discussed the use of e-mail, which was a public record. She cautioned the Council to avoid meetings over e-mail because a discussion of City business at any time by a quorum of the Council qualified as a public meeting. Mr. Powell concurred. Ms. Christie noted the exception to the rule: Council tours. Mr. Powell recommended that any conversation during a tour relate solely to the onsite inspection, leaving any deliberations for a public meeting. The Council discussed how to handle questions about an agenda item via e-mail. Mr. McIntyre asked the Council to send technical questions to the appropriate staff member. He indicated that if a Council member discussed a policy question with a staff member, then he/she should forward the answer to everyone. He explained that they should not send the question to everyone because, if everyone weighed in, then they have effectively convened an unintentional online meeting, which they should avoid. Mr. Lashbrook pointed out that questions to staff members on a quasi-judicial matter were not ex parte contacts. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Tierney that he preferred Council members to communicate directly with the author of a staff report, which would always be the department head, no matter which staff member actually wrote the report. He indicated to Councilor Johnson that he did not mind a Council member sending him a copy of the e-mail with the question. Mr. Powell emphasized that a quorum of Council members at a social gathering trod a fine line with respect to an ethics violation. He urged caution in any situation that presented the appearance of Council deliberations, whether or not the Council members were actually talking about City business. He noted that three members talking together did not represent a quorum, and therefore was technically not a public meeting, but appearance was still an issue. • Public Records City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 January 7, 2009 Ms. Christie emphasized that every communication dealing with City business, including e-mails, were public records, which someone could request. She stated that the Council members were required to maintain public records. Councilor Jordan suggested forwarding an e-mail received at a Council member's personal e- mail address to the member's City e-mail address, and answering from the City address. Mr. Powell confirmed that if a Council member consistently did so, thus separating City e-mails from personal e-mails, then hopefully a judge would not order an inspection of a Council member's computer hard drive at home, in such an event that that became necessary. He pointed out that if Council members sent City business e-mails to the City distribution list, then Ms. Christie would take care of archiving the records. Mr. Powell discussed confidential records versus public records. He emphasized that a communication could reasonably be considered confidential if the City was not obligated to disclose it, or when the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. He urged caution with respect to frank communications, as conditional exceptions were always conditioned on the public interest disclosure outweighing what one wanted to protect. He recommended the safe route of considering everything as disclosable. Mayor Hoffman commented that something to be wary of was a mistake that he has made in the past of forgetting whether he learned a piece of information in executive session or open session. • Councilor Communications Mr. Hertzberg noted the importance of Council members having the same expectations with respect to Council communications. Councilor Jordan recalled that the past Council's practice regarding discussions between two Council members on a current issue has been for the Council members to have a private phone conversation regarding the matter. She commented that it was important not to feel ganged up on by four members who decided something together without talking to the other three. She indicated that, while she was not aware that situation has occurred at Lake Oswego, she did know that it has happened in many other places. Councilor Moncrieff said that she preferred one-on-one phone conversations or face-to-face conversations over e-mail. Councilor Johnson indicated that she also preferred one-on-one conversations, as long as they were used to talk about things generally, and not to lobby for • something. Councilor Tierney stated his preference for e-mail communication. Mayor Hoffman spoke keeping others informed to avoid being surprised. Councilor Jordan said that she thought that the e-mail exchange system proposed by Mr. McIntyre would help with Council communications by removing the possibility of potential deliberations. Councilor Olson commented that she saw too many one-on-one phone conversations as an unhealthy sign. She stated her preference for e-mail. Councilor Johnson recalled that the only time she called people individually was to bounce an idea off someone before possibly embarrassing herself in an e-mail. She pointed out that it was difficult during a meeting to raise new issues not on the agenda. Mr. McIntyre suggested that Council members use him or Mr. Powell as a sounding board for new issues. Mayor Hoffman commented that the Council has raised new issues at study sessions for discussion before setting it as an agenda item. The Council agreed on the importance of the 'no surprises' rule. • Study Sessions Mr. McIntyre explained that study sessions were an invaluable staff resource for shaping the staff work and educating the Council on a given issue. He discussed how study sessions helped insure that there were no major surprises during public hearings. Councilor Johnson suggested holding meetings every Tuesday evening and discontinuing the Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning meetings. Councilor Ti rney spoke to holding as many study sessions as needed to do the work, but preferably not at 2 p.m. Ms. Christie clarified that City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 January 7, 2009 study sessions were televised on a delay basis. Councilor Jordan commented about the need to coordinate additional Council meetings with the other meetings Council members attended outside of City Council meetings. Mr. Hertzberg summarized the Council agreement as holding meetings only when needed, and holding either business meetings or study sessions every Tuesday night in the City Council Chambers so that they could be televised. • Tuesday morning meeting/Council Packet/Consent Agenda The Council discussed the 7:30 a.m. Tuesday meetings. Councilor Jordan explained that their purpose had been threefold: to review the evening agenda and to request any additional information from staff, to discuss pulling items from the Consent Agenda, and to present minutes corrections. She concurred with Councilor Johnson that sometimes the morning meetings went into study sessions or executive sessions. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that, because of his complicated conflicts of interest checks, he needed to get the packet on Thursday, instead of on Friday. Mr. McIntyre said that staff could produce the packet whenever the Council wanted it produced. He suggested that Council members submit their minutes corrections directly to Ms. Christie. He also suggested, since Council members would have five days to review the packet before the Tuesday meeting, that they contact him and/or staff with any questions before Tuesday in order to allow staff adequate time to respond. He said that he would call everyone on Monday to touch base on whether a Council member had any issues or questions. He pointed out that the tradeoff to discontinuing the Tuesday morning meeting was potentially longer Tuesday evening meetings. The Council discussed how to handle pulling items from the Consent Agenda. Mr. McIntyre indicated that his preference was for Councilors to call him about pulling an item off the Consent Agenda, as he might be able to clarify their questions or concerns. If an item did end up being pulled, he would notify the other Council members via e-mail. Councilor Jordan spoke to making a Council consensus decision to pull something off the Consent Agenda. She pointed out that if she had a question about an item, probably someone else did too, but he/she might not realize it until the reading of the Consent Agenda during the meeting. She suggested going through Mr. McIntyre first to get an answer, and then communicating both the question and the satisfactory answer to the rest of the Council. Councilor Jordan suggested having a deadline, such as 3 p.m. on Monday, for Council members to bring agenda questions forward. She held that waiting until 3 p.m. Tuesday to raise a question was unfair to staff. Mr. McIntyre indicated that he did not want to preclude anyone from asking questions on the agenda at any time. While he did not want to pull things off the Consent Agenda, he believed that the Council could pull something from the Consent Agenda up to the minute it was read. He stated that his desire was to help the Council run an efficient meeting to the extent possible. The Council discussed reading the Consent Agenda. Mr. McIntyre questioned the purpose of reading the Consent Agenda. He described it as an inefficient use of time, and stated that he did not see any value in doing so. He suggested putting the Consent Agenda titles up on the screen with the camera focusing on them while the Council talked about the Consent Agenda. People in the audience could read it in the packet. Mr. Powell indicated that that was fine as long as it was displayed so people could see it. Councilor Johnson spoke of putting it up long enough for people to read through it. Councilor Johnson indicated that she was fine with questions or items pulled from the Consent Agenda going out through e-mail (after going through Mr. McIntyre), as long as it did not engender discussion. The Council concurred with the process suggested by Councilor Jordan. The Council indicated to Mr. Mclntyr that it was not important to know who asked to pull an item. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 January 7, 2009 Councilor Jordan indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Council has resolved the issues she had with discontinuing the Tuesday morning meeting. Mr. Hertzberg noted that there was consensus not to hold a Tuesday morning meeting. • Meetings Mr. Hertzberg asked how to bring the new Council members up to speed on the issues with which the senior members were familiar. Councilor Johnson suggested using study sessions, not so much for educational information, but for the Council to discuss where things were now and how the Council got there. She spoke to the importance of all Council members being on the same page. Councilor Moncrieff commented that these study sessions would help with the spirit of transparency, in that the new Council members could ask questions and get clarification in front of the public, so that everyone would know where the Council was at. Councilor Jordan asked for clarification on the meeting schedule, noting that she had planned her vacations around the old schedule of no meetings on the fourth Tuesday. She commented that she did not want to miss out on important decisions while she was absent. Mr. McIntyre indicated that the first and third Tuesdays would remain business meetings, while the second, fourth, and rare fifth Tuesday would be study sessions. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that they could also hold study sessions following the regular business meeting. He acknowledged Councilor Jordan's concern but noted that he would have to miss meetings if he had an out-of-town trial. Councilor Olson suggested agreeing that the Council make no major decisions during study sessions. Councilor Jordan spoke of the importance of publicizing the changed meeting schedule and the intent to record and later televise every study session. Mayor Hoffman commented that, while he was okay with televising the study sessions, he did not want them driven by where the camera was. If necessary, the Council could meet some place else. The Council discussed Mayor Hoffman's proposal to change the meeting time from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. It agreed by consensus to do so. The Council discussed Mr. Mclntyre's suggestion to hold executive sessions during the dinner hour when people were fresh, instead of after the meeting when people were tired. It agreed to hold executive sessions at 6:00 p.m. while eating dinner. Mr. Powell mentioned that the Council would have to vote to reschedule the starting time. Mayor Hoffman asked for a resolution on January 20 changing the meeting time to 6:30 p.m. • Expectations of Mayor Hoffman as Presiding Officer Mr. Hertzberg mentioned hearing expectations from Council members, such as helping to build consensus but not going overboard with that, and recognizing that there was a time to bring things to closure and keep the Council on track. Mayor Hoffman described his style. He mentioned preferring a nodding of heads indicating the sense of the Council in making a decision to the more formal motion style of Roberts'Rules of Order. He stated that his role was to be a facilitator, as Mayor Hammerstad had been. He indicated that all Council members were equal. He emphasized the importance of transparency and no surprises. • Council Interaction with Citizens Councilor Jordan raised the issue of how the Council should interact with citizens during the Citizen Comment period, which was different from interacting with the public during a public hearing. Councilor Ti rney commented that he thought it was a disservice to the citizens taking the time to testify at a public hearing for the Council not to interact with them. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11 January 7, 2009 Mayor Hoffman pointed out that typically Citizen Comment involved an unexpected issue for which the Council had no immediate solution. Therefore, the Mayor usually thanked the citizen for the testimony and directed him/her to meet with the appropriate staff. With respect to a public hearing dealing with a specific issue, he indicated that the Council as a group needed to decide how to handle interacting with citizens. He spoke of handling it on an individual case basis because the Council's response depended upon the situation. Councilor Olson described how the Planning Commission started handling Citizen Comment, which resulted in informal conversations with the public about topics raised by the citizens. She said that the benefit from doing that far outweighed the longer meetings. She concurred with Councilor Tierney that a citizen bothering to testify deserved some interaction, whether at a public hearing or during Citizen Comment. She suggested extending the time limit to five minutes. Councilor Johnson indicated that she would look to the Mayor to make the decision on how much the Council interacted with the citizens at any given meeting, because the amount of that interaction depended on the subject under discussion and on the meeting agenda. She commented that, since the Council usually let people go over the three-minute time limit, she did not think that they needed to change it. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he did not mind Citizen Comment exceeding the three-minute time limit. Councilor Jordan discussed the differences she saw between Citizen Comment and a public hearing. Citizen Comment was a time for a citizen to comment on something not on the agenda, which made it difficult to prepare information or to answer off the cuff. She spoke of the importance of balancing out the fairness issue of people receiving equal amounts of time. She commented that, as individual Council members, they needed to be careful during public hearings when responding to a particular person or issue in order to avoid that person concluding that the Council was supporting his/her position. Councilor Tierney spoke of finding a process that allowed people concerned enough about an issue to testify about it to feel like the Council has listened to them. He also mentioned that staff, when answering citizen questions, needed to speak into the microphones because the acoustics of the back of the room were not good. Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Jordan that giving testimony as a citizen was intimidating, and that people could easily draw the wrong conclusion from a Council member talking with them. She agreed with Councilor Johnson that handling testimony was up to the facilitator. She spoke of the fairness issue with respect to public hearings, recalling that if she gave her testimony and sat down after the time limit, and then the next person got into a dialog with a Council member, she had felt that that was not fair. Mr. Hertzberg summarized the goal as demonstrating respect for people and letting them know that they have been heard. • Meeting Process The Council discussed using a formal versus informal process during the business meetings. Councilor Johnson commented that she saw having rules and a respect for the process as an important part of the respect for the office. Therefore, she preferred more formality during the business meetings, although more informality during the study sessions was fine. Councilor Olson indicated that, based on her experience at the Planning Commission, she preferred a more informal approach. She spoke of being flexible when possible within the meeting structure. Councilor Jordan commented that the benefits of the formal process were making everyone feel like they knew what was coming next, and maintaining order. She suggested setting aside one of the Tuesday nights for a Town Hall meeting with informal give and take between the Council and the audience, while keeping the business meetings more formal. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 January 7, 2009 Councilor Tierney indicated his preference for a formal meeting process. C uncilor Moncrieff said that she preferred structure and process. She mentioned that she liked the idea of a Town Hall meeting separate from the regular meetings. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he expected to receive feedback from the Councilors regarding his conduct of a meeting, especially through non-verbals as he looked around the dais. He spoke of interacting with the community in combination with the Council working as a group as efficiently as possible. • Order of the vote The Council discussed the order of the vote. Councilor Tierney expressed a preference for the vote order rotating each week, but with Councilors remaining in the same seats. Councilor Jordan pointed out that the Council rarely did a roll call vote. Mr. Powell indicated that the rules called for the order of the vote to rotate each week but did not require that the Mayor vote first. Mayor Hoffman said that Mayor Hammerstad had told him that she had wanted to be first as the group leader. Councilor Olson indicated that she did not feel strongly about the issue, and would support Councilor Tierney's expressed wish. Councilor Moncrieff agreed with Councilor Tierney that the order should rotate each week. The Council agreed that it was up to the Mayor to decide whether he would go first. Mayor Hoffman elected to go first. The Council agreed that the order of the vote would rotate each week with the Mayor going first. Ms. Christie would keep track of it and notify the Councilor going first after the Mayor. Councilor Jordan suggested that, at the start of a meeting, the Council ask for all cell phones to be turned off, and to announce the availability of hearing aid devices. Ms. Christie noted that she published the information about the hearing devices on every agenda. • Goal Setting Mr. Hertzberg directed attention to the list of topics that he gathered from his interviews with the Council members. He mentioned two items to keep in mind: what were the milestones that the Council wanted to see this year, and how did the Council communicate on each of the issues? He asked if there were any items (after the top five), which a Council member felt needed more attention during the presentation. Councilor Olson spoke of bringing the Council up to speed on the upcoming planning issues, including periodic review, visioning, the code, the Matrix study, and infill and sensitive lands. Mr. McIntyre asked for clearer direction on some of the one or two word topics, as he did not know what the original question had been that led to a Council member mentioning the topic. He noted that all the department heads would attend the Friday meeting, but not the Saturday meeting. Mr. Hertzberg said that the question he had asked was what the Council member saw as the most important goals for the Council and the City in the next year. He pointed out that some of the topics meant different things to different people. Councilor Tierney asked what they were defining as 'a goal.' Mr. Hertzberg said that, in the past, the Council has defined 'a goal' as something that the Council needed to keep its eye on over the course of the year. He spoke of a goal as having an endpoint for the year, an `x' amount of progress that would be made. He pointed out that there was a real difference between Council goals and City goals, with which the Council had little to do. Mr. McIntyre commented that he believed that the Council wanted quality results from staff. He described a goal as a task to which the Council was willing to dedicate resources, which would be at the expense of a lower priority item. He said that, in order for him to set a budget and start moving forward, he needed the Council to identify the top x number of items it wanted pursued this year. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11 January 7, 2009 Mr. Hertzberg recalled that one of the most effective goal setting techniques the Council has used occurred last July when the Council used a triage process in deciding what it could get done in the next six months before the new Council came in. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, aCL Robyn hristie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON March 24 2009 1 Jac Hoffman, r City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11 January 7, 2009