Laserfiche WebLink
options. Mr. Braud added that it was more efficient to do one process and it would also provide some <br />certainty to property owners. He thought it might give the same advantages to everyone. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought the uncertainty would exist regardless. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the motion to keep the existing <br />March timeline for the first options to expire, options 3, 7, and 11, and to provide a more <br />generous timeline for the rest of the options. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked if there was a possibility that any of the first options to expire would be planned to be <br />done in tandem with the second options and how having two deadlines would affect this. Mr. Braud did not <br />foresee issues related to the implementation of two timelines. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka supported the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz asked if someone with money for the building they were in wanted to purchase a property with a <br />later deadline would have to wait. Mr. Braud replied that the deadline would have to be the same for all <br />bidders in the process. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked if the remaining five properties would be done in a block. Mr. Braud affirmed that his <br />recommendation would be to have a first process for the initial three and then a second process for the <br />remainder. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to issue all of the options for bid but to place <br />separate deadlines on the first three and the second five. The maker accepted the amend- <br />ment. <br /> <br />The amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein reviewed the changes, as follows: <br />? <br /> In the second bullet point, beginning with minimum bid, a sentence would be added that would say <br />“agency also will consider public benefits identified by the bidder.” <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />