2026-01-12 - Minutes DRAFT 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

threshold, noting the commission's role is to score and provide reports, while the council decides what to act on. She noted the commission's reports already distinguish low scoring nominations from high scoring properties and questioned whether the prioritization created by scoring is being used effectively. Cmr. Rosam said she believes 50 percent is too low for a recommended list, especially with increased nominations and a long backlog. She advocated raising the threshold and suggested 70 percent as a reasonable standard that would still allow significant properties that do not score highly on every criterion to be recommended, while preventing marginal nominations from being forwarded. Cmr. Ward said a 50 percent score equates to a failing grade and said commissioners should be more rigorous in scoring. She said the council ultimately chose to act on those properties and suggested the issue may be commissioner scoring practices rather than the rule itself, and she expressed that she did not believe changing the rule is necessary. Ms. Campbell noted that the effect of the threshold is that any property meeting or exceeding the threshold is sent forward with the commission's endorsement as worthy of acquisition. She said the commission cannot control council decisions, but it can control what it forwards, and urged commissioners to consider the effect of recommending properties they view as failing. V. Chr. Britt asked whether the commission must send all properties scoring 50 percent or more forward. Ms. Campbell said that is what the current rules require, and that changing the number is the mechanism to exclude lower scored properties. Chr. Chang raised whether the commission should form a PInG or continue discussion as a full commission in noticed meetings. Ms. Campbell said a PInG is not required and explained that the commission can continue discussing the issue over multiple meetings to refine a proposal, then initiate the formal rulemaking process once a draft change is ready. She said if the commission identifies a number during this discussion, staff can publish notice and bring the formal rulemaking action to a subsequent meeting, and that a simple change, such as changing 50 to 70, could proceed through notice and adoption on a relatively short timeline. Cmr. Markoff asked about Zoom capability and technical support in relation to rules. Chr. Chang said it was not on the agenda and the commission could not discuss it at that time. Cmr. Rosam proposed discussing a target number during the meeting and reiterated her support for 70 percent. Cmr. Crivello asked whether changing the threshold would remove existing properties below the new number from the current list. Ms. Campbell said the rules do not provide a mechanism for removing properties from the list and said the effect would apply going forward. Chr. Chang asked whether a PInG formed now could later add new commissioners. Ms. Campbell said no, membership is set when the PInG is formed. V. Chr. Britt asked whether a PInG must have three people. Ms. Campbell said a PInG may have up to four members. Cmr. Ward asked whether members of the public may serve on a PInG. Ms. Campbell confirmed they may. Cmr. Rosam noted upcoming commissioner turnover and emphasized moving quickly so any change is in place before the next scoring cycle. V. Chr. Britt expressed support for moving forward with 70 percent. Cmr. Crivello supported agreeing on a number and proceeding efficiently through the public notice process. Chr. Chang noted the motion on the floor and Cmr. Rosam amended her motion to specify DRAFT-Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 13