Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 4865 establishing local criteria applicable in the West Eugene Enterprise Zone; further, to adopt a Public Benefit Scoring System; and repeal Resolution 4851. Ms. Bettman referred to the Job Creation Cap, as noted in the AIS. She questioned if the Enterprise Zone was adopted by ordinance and further if the cap was embedded in that document. Mr. Braud replied that the Enterprise Zone was adopted by resolution and the cap was embedded in that resolution as a result of the action taken in August to adopt the Interim Local Criteria. Ms. Bettman pointed out that an amendment to a resolution could be adopted by a simple majority of the council, whereas an ordinance automatically created the opportunity for a public hearing. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to put forth a substitute motion to direct the City Manager to bring back an ordinance to the City Council incorporating the proposed language in Resolution 4865, as set forth by the Enterprise Zone Committee. Ms. Bettman explained that an ordinance provided for one more level of public input in the event a future council determined that the job cap should be removed. She pointed out that a resolution provided no protection. Mr. Kelly concurred with Ms. Bettman’s reasoning, and added that given the amount of the public interest in the Enterprise Zone, it would benefit the council to solicit public input on the criteria. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that the committee held a public workshop and a public hearing on the proposal and received a fair amount of comment. Mr. Kelly continued to believe it would be useful to adopt an ordinance to ensure that future councils would have to make any changes by an additional ordinance. City Manager Taylor replied that a public hearing could be held at the May 8 City Council meeting, followed by council action. Mr. Pryor urged the council to adopt the proposal by resolution and opined that the public comment received at the committee level was adequate. Additionally, he stated that the collaborative nature of the committee and the deliberative debate that ensued resulted in a careful and thoughtful process. He would not support the substitute motion. Ms. Solomon concurred with Mr. Pryor’s comments. Ms. Bettman voiced appreciation that the committee made a successful effort to bring the public into the process; however, she said it was critical to ensure public scrutiny in the future if there was any movement to repeal the job cap as it was the only criterion that tied the benefit to the actual jobs created. Ms. Taylor concurred, and opined there was never too much public scrutiny. She pointed out that public hearings held at the committee level never receive the public interest that was present in a hearing sponsored at the council level. Ms. Ortiz stated she did not oppose slowing down the process to ensure public scrutiny and would support the substitute motion; however, she stressed that the exemplary efforts put forth by the committee should not be discounted. In response to a question posed by Mr. Pape?, Mr. Braud responded that the Lane Board of County Commissioners would review the proposal on April 12, and he voiced an assumption that if the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 5 Work Session