My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-26-1995
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
1952-1999
>
1995
>
01-26-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2012 2:04:23 PM
Creation date
5/12/2003 11:44:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Minutes
Date
1/26/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Policy vs. Process <br /> <br />Uptegraff clarified the major differences between "policy" and "process," indicating policy <br />was established by Council and responded to "What do people want?" while process was <br />implemented by staff and answered "How are goals accomplished?" She encouraged <br />Councilmembers to have staff present at meetings with constituents to help determine <br />whether a complaint was a policy or process issue, since this would determine whether <br />Council or staff should be addressing the complaint. <br /> <br />Councilmember Richardson requested that staff develop criteria for measuring both the <br />efficiency and effectiveness of the City's planning processes. <br /> <br />Definition of "Customer" <br /> <br />Uptegraff led the Council in a brainstorming session to determine the City's customers, their <br />primary interest(s), and their time perspectives. Councilmember Mills suggested the primary <br />customers were the citizenry at-large with a long-term perspective and applicants seeking <br />project approval with a short-term view. The Council added the business community, future <br />citizens, and other government agencies, all of whose time perspectives were long-term, but <br />whose primary interests varied. <br /> <br />Organizational Roles and Responsibilities <br /> <br />Planning Manager Ken Adams showed charts depicting the respective roles of the Planning <br />Commission, City Council, and staff as legislative, judicial, and administrative. He also <br />discussed the percentages of City Council, Planning Commission, and staff involvement in <br />policy and implementation arenas, opining the process (implementation) function was <br />conducted 85% at the staff level; 10%, Planning Commission; and 5%, City Council. <br /> <br />Councilmember Mills requested staff provide a list of the land uses requiting Conditional <br />Use Permits; Councilmember McGuigan, Council planning responsibilities transferred to the <br />Planning Commission; and Councilmember Richardson, time frames for discretionary <br />approvals. <br /> <br />Planning Commissioner Brown cautioned the Council concerning the pitfalls of arbitrary <br />decision-making to accommodate differing neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Departmental Roles <br /> <br />Uptegraff noted five agencies were directly involved in development processing: Planning <br />and Building, Public Works, Police, Fire, and Community Development. She introduced <br />senior Planning staff members including Senior Planner Linda Hale, long-term planning; <br />Senior Planner Jeffry Rice, current planning; Associate Planner Joe Edwards, public counter <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL M1NUTES 29 JANUARY 26, 1995 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.