Laserfiche WebLink
incorporating the proposed language in Resolution 4865, as set forth by the <br />Enterprise Zone Committee. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman explained that an ordinance provided for one more level of public input in the event <br />a future council determined that the job cap should be removed. She pointed out that a resolution <br /> <br />provided no protection. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly concurred with Ms. Bettman’s reasoning, and added that given the amount of the <br />public interest in the Enterprise Zone, it would benefit the council to solicit public input on the <br />criteria. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz pointed out that the committee held a public workshop and a public hearing on the <br />proposal and received a fair amount of comment. Mr. Kelly continued to believe it would be <br />useful to adopt an ordinance to ensure that future councils would have to make any changes by an <br />additional ordinance. City Manager Taylor replied that a public hearing could be held at the May <br />8 City Council meeting, followed by council action. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor urged the council to adopt the proposal by resolution and opined that the public <br />comment received at the committee level was adequate. Additionally, he stated that the <br />collaborative nature of the committee and the deliberative debate that ensued resulted in a careful <br />and thoughtful process. He would not support the substitute motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon concurred with Mr. Pryor’s comments. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman voiced appreciation that the committee made a successful effort to bring the public <br />into the process; however, she said it was critical to ensure public scrutiny in the future if there <br />was any movement to repeal the job cap as it was the only criterion that tied the benefit to the <br />actual jobs created. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor concurred, and opined there was never too much public scrutiny. She pointed out that <br />public hearings held at the committee level never receive the public interest that was present in a <br />hearing sponsored at the council level. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz stated she did not oppose slowing down the process to ensure public scrutiny and <br />would support the substitute motion; however, she stressed that the exemplary efforts put forth by <br />the committee should not be discounted. <br /> <br />In response to a question posed by Mr. Pape?, Mr. Braud responded that the Lane Board of County <br />Commissioners would review the proposal on April 12, and he voiced an assumption that if the <br />council delayed action on the proposal before it, the commission may want to remove the item <br />from its agenda until such time that the City’s process was completed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bobby Green indicated that he appreciated the discussion on this issue and said if <br />the council chose to hold a public hearing on the proposal, Lane County would support that <br />action. He added that if the substitute motion before the council passed, he would recommend to <br />the board that it discuss but not take action on the proposal at its April 12 meeting. <br /> <br />Commissioner Green did voice a concern, however, that if as a result of the public hearing, the <br />council made additional changes, a different document would be brought back to the board for <br />action; additionally, the Enterprise Zone Committee could be asked to reconvene to review the <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />