Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />25 January 2021 <br />Page 7of9 <br />Zuccaro replied that he did not know the exact date but the Commission was on the schedule. <br />Dunlap asked how the City Clerk was involved in the staff packet. <br />Ritchie replied that the City Clerk office handled the website updates and posting process. <br />Dunlap proposed a couple of process changes. He stated that the Commission talked about <br />items that would then sometimes disappear. He understood that there had been big issues in <br />the City in 2020 and that there had been staffing issues in the Planning Department. He gave <br />the examples of discussing new grant funding limits; Resolution 30, Series 2020; and <br />conservation easements in general. He proposed maintaining a list of open items for the agenda <br />so that if something was put on the backburner it would not get lost. He also stated that the <br />commissioners were running into problems talking to each other because the Commission only <br />met once a month and because the commissioners could not discuss anything over email. He <br />suggested following City Council's example and making Commission emails public. <br />Zuccaro suggested making a section of the agenda for updates on projects and work plan <br />items, with an update during each meeting under Items from Staff. He stated that staff would <br />institute that starting next month if there were no commissioner objections. Zuccaro also <br />clarified that the City Council was not allowed to exchange internal emails. The emails that <br />Commissioner Dunlap was referring to were emails to the Council from the public. <br />Dunlap stated that there was a provision for planning meetings and that the Commission could <br />hold one. He wondered if there could be some kind of public email folder. <br />Haley replied that the email folder was for if someone emailed the Council from outside and that <br />the emails did not include internal discussion. <br />Dunlap asked if the commissioners could have discussions if they were made public via email. <br />Zuccaro replied that a public email folder to enable inter -commission discussion would not work <br />as publishing emails did not meet the standard of providing public notice to be part of the <br />discussion. He stated that the City Attorney could explain the legal backing behind these rules in <br />more detail. <br />Dunlap stated that maybe maintaining the work item list would get the job done. He did not feel <br />that the Commission was meeting its obligations for the Fund at the moment. <br />Klemme added that the Commission needed to talk about whether they were going to require <br />contractors for HSAs. There were a lot of little things like that that needed to be fully fleshed out, <br />when the Commission did not have time to deal with it in the moment. She wondered if the <br />Commission could have the public hearings meeting and another meeting every other month or <br />every quarter that was open to the public but was specifically about the items that keeps falling <br />off. She noted that the program was so successful now that they Commission did not have time <br />to keep up with other stuff. <br />Zuccaro replied that the Commission could have an overflow meeting to address those items. <br />Typically staff tries to provide discussion and background on discussion items and they had not <br />been able to keep up over the last year. But they could hold overflow meetings, whether staff <br />7 <br />