Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Riverfront Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debate grows over riverfront spending; members request public meeting as attorney invoice itemization is challenged
Summary
Council members pressed for more transparency and a public meeting on riverfront development costs. Separately, council voted to withhold payment of a small, non‑itemized attorney invoice for the riverfront project and asked for itemized billing.
Council members pressed city staff for clearer cost estimates and greater inclusion in ongoing riverfront-development discussions, and residents used the public-comment period to raise questions about financing and flood-levee impacts.
Several council members said they had not been included in recurring engineer and attorney conversations about the riverfront project and asked staff to include elected officials on email conversations and to schedule a joint meeting with the conservancy district and project engineers. One council member moved to pause further spending on the riverfront project until a joint meeting with the conservancy could be held; the motion was met with both support and opposition during roll call and council members agreed to schedule a meeting to review final cost estimates and engineers’ findings before authorizing additional expenditures.
During the claims-and-payments portion of the meeting, councilors raised two small attorney invoices tied to the riverfront project that appeared in the claim list. One invoice for $14.52 had no itemization; another similarly small invoice included some detail. Councilors voted to withhold payment of the $14.52 invoice until staff provided an itemized bill showing the work performed. In roll call the motion to withhold the $14.52 payment passed 3–1; council members said they want clearer billing detail for large, ongoing projects and will require itemizations for future related claims.
Residents in public comment asked how the project would be financed and whether bonds or TIF revenue would be used; staff said final financing decisions would be made after the engineers provide a final cost estimate (staff said an updated number from the engineer was expected in the coming two weeks). Residents also asked about potential long-term maintenance costs and whether the project could affect certification of the local levee; staff said engineers were coordinating with the conservancy district to address levee and inspection questions.
Council also approved the donation-committee recommendations and moved several routine claims and payroll items after the itemization question was addressed.
