Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

council could institute a public hearing once the project level had been reached. He supported the first amendment Ms. Bettman suggested. Ms. Bettman was willing to postpone consideration on her second suggested amendment to the motion, related to the City’s financial policies. Mr. Clark agreed the council wanted to protect people’s right to refer a specific project. He asked if failure to approve the motion came with opportunity costs. Mr. Braud said the City was dealing with purchase options with a 12-month life, and some were half-way through that lifetime. Mr. Clark asked if expiration of the options could cost the City more in the future or loss of those opportunities altogether. Mr. Braud agreed there was a risk of spending more money. Ms. Bettman preferred to wait on the resolution until the City had a project. She did not think there was support for that, however, and was willing to compromise if the council held the public hearing rather than the CDBG Advisory Committee. Ms. Bettman said the project was enormously costly on an upfront basis. She realized the CDBG money was pledged and the intent was as stated by Ms. Cutsogeorge, but she perceived competition for urban renewal funds that might result in the council deciding to use the CDBG funding after all, making it unavailable for the types of projects she previously mentioned. Mr. Zelenka thought the City would likely have to renegotiate some of the agreements and was glad to hear that they had automatic renewals at a modest fee. Ms. Taylor did not consider $30,000 modest. She was disturbed by the hint of urgency and the statement council would be involved when the council would be going on break soon and councilors would not be around. She thought that was why the manager did it. She reiterated that the options constituted a threat to the businesses in those buildings now and hoped they were not renewed. She thought the council should have been consulted about the options. Ms. Solomon asked staff to comment on Ms. Bettman’s proposed amendment. Ms. Jones said staff had no concerns about the amendment. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the council adopt Council Bill 4938. Ms. Bettman moved to amend Section 4 of the ordinance as follows: “Before any revenue bonds authorized by this ordinance are issued to finance a project, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the project or projects to be funded with the revenue bonds and au- thorize the issuance by a subsequent resolution.” Mr. Pryor and Ms. Taylor accepted Ms. Bettman’s amendment as a friendly amendment. Mr. Clark asked if staff recommended a time frame for the council public hearing after a project was identified. Ms. Jones said no. Ms. Bettman did not think a time line was needed as she believed staff could expedite something if it wished. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Jones to speak to that. Ms. Jones indicated her expectation that the manager and mayor would discuss that when they planned the council agendas. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 7 Work Session