Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 02 22

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 25 January 2021 Page 7 of 9 Zuccaro replied that he did not know the exact date but the Commission was on the schedule Dunlap asked how the City Clerk was involved in the staff packet. Ritchie replied that the City Clerk office handled the website updates and posting process. Dunlap proposed a couple of process changes. He stated that the Commission talked about items that would then sometimes disappear. He understood that there had been big issues in the City in 2020 and that there had been staffing issues in the Planning Department. He gave the examples of discussing new grant funding limits; Resolution 30, Series 2020; and conservation easements in general. He proposed maintaining a list of open items for the agenda so that if something was put on the backburner it would not get lost. He also stated that the commissioners were running into problems talking to each other because the Commission only met once a month and because the commissioners could not discuss anything over email. He suggested following City Council's example and making Commission emails public. Zuccaro suggested making a section of the agenda for updates on projects and work plan items, with an update during each meeting under Items from Staff. He stated that staff would institute that starting next month if there were no commissioner objections. Zuccaro also clarified that the City Council was not allowed to exchange internal emails. The emails that Commissioner Dunlap was referring to were emails to the Council from the public. Dunlap stated that there was a provision for planning meetings and that the Commission could hold one. He wondered if there could be some kind of public email folder. Haley replied that the email folder was for if someone emailed the Council from outside and that the emails did not include internal discussion. Dunlap asked if the commissioners could have discussions if they were made public via email. Zuccaro replied that a public email folder to enable inter -commission discussion would not work as publishing emails did not meet the standard of providing public notice to be part of the discussion. He stated that the City Attorney could explain the legal backing behind these rules in more detail. Dunlap stated that maybe maintaining the work item list would get the job done. He did not feel that the Commission was meeting its obligations for the Fund at the moment. Klemme added that the Commission needed to talk about whether they were going to require contractors for HSAs. There were a lot of little things like that that needed to be fully fleshed out, when the Commission did not have time to deal with it in the moment. She wondered if the Commission could have the public hearings meeting and another meeting every other month or every quarter that was open to the public but was specifically about the items that keeps falling off. She noted that the program was so successful now that they Commission did not have time to keep up with other stuff. Zuccaro replied that the Commission could have an overflow meeting to address those items. Typically staff tries to provide discussion and background on discussion items and they had not rA