Laserfiche WebLink
such contracts to occur without violation of the charter, which continued to be questioned by <br />councilors. He suggested that the issues could be considered separately. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she preferred to not hold public hearings on ordinances which were not in <br />the final form in which they were to be considered by council. She said she preferred to split the <br />issues, hold a public hearing about the first issue identified by Mr. Johnson immediately, and <br />postpone a public hearing regarding the second until more council-consensus was evident. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that the current council would likely have only one opportunity for public <br />hearings and that, if an additional public hearing was required, at least two new councilors would <br />need to recuse themselves from involvement in deliberation regarding the portion of the <br />proposed ordinance in question. <br /> <br />Mr. Swanson Gribskov asked if alternatives to the currently proposed ordinance could be <br />prepared in time for the current council to consider making a proposal to a public hearing. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey suggested that the council could submit to a public hearing those provisions of the <br />ordinance related to existing contracts at the current meeting and that any other elements of the <br />proposal be considered by the new council to convene in January. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he agreed with the comments of Mayor Torrey and Ms. Nathanson and <br />favored separating the issues identified by Mr. Johnson and holding two separate public <br />hearings. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that she agreed the council should hold a public hearing only on the provisions of <br />the proposed ordinance which dealt with pre-existing contracts. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue said he was concerned that a councilor who was an employee holding a contract with <br />the City might have a pecuniary interest in that contract. Mr. Klein stated that the provisions of <br />the ordinance only related to councilors with ownership of a business. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue said he was also concerned that provisions of the ordinance under consideration could <br />require that contracts be established with businesses that did not provide the lowest cost <br />provisions. He suggested that doing so was not in the public interest. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said he hoped that the council would never take any matter to a public hearing which it <br />did not expect to change. He said the purpose of a public hearing was to receive input which <br />might improve what was being considered. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said he believed the council should take both issues dealt with in the proposed <br />ordinance to a public hearing because it would be awkward for the next council to deal with them. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she agreed with the comments of Mr. Fart. She said changes needed to be <br />made to a proposal in response to public testimony, but that a completely different approach to <br />an issue developed after a public hearing should not be adopted by the council without the <br />benefit of further public input. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to direct the City Manager and <br /> City Attorney to draft a proposal for amendment of Section 2.106 of the <br /> Eugene Code related to existing contracts consistent with the charter. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 23, 1998 Page 5 <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />