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