Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Private Partnership topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pacific Partnership contract amended in committee and tabled to July 7 after contested facade-grant language
Summary
Councilors reviewed Resolution 2026-11 authorizing a contract with Pacific Partnership Inc.; they approved edits requiring the mayor to sign and financial reports before payments, debated facade-grant language and then voted to table the agreement to the July 7 meeting for staff and partnership clarification.
The board opened discussion on Resolution 2026-11 on June 22, a contract proposal with Pacific Partnership Inc. for downtown revitalization and event coordination, and approved several wording edits while deferring final action.
Alderman Cleave moved to make three specific contract changes: require the mayor to sign the agreement (rather than the city administrator), replace the phrase "city council" with "board of aldermen," and mandate that Pacific Partnership provide financial reports prior to any quarterly payments. The board approved those three changes by voice vote.
Members then debated whether language in the agreement that references a facade grant program implicitly authorized city funds to be used for private-property facade grants. Some aldermen said the clause looked like a holdover from earlier drafts and could be read to obligate city dollars; others said the partnership already understood that city funds cannot be used on private property. After multiple amendment proposals and concern about the contract wording and timing, the board moved to table the agreement until the July 7 meeting so staff can consult the city attorney, refine language (including a clause that city funds cannot be used for private-property facade grants), and invite the partnership to clarify intended uses.
One member summarized the board’s instruction: insist on receipt of financial reports before payments are issued and clarify that city funds shall not be used for facade grants to private property unless explicitly authorized by the board.
The board’s action was procedural: several edits to the draft contract were approved; the substantive outstanding item — the facade-grant language and how it interacts with city funds — was left for review at a later meeting.
“Let’s table this and have the staff look at getting that change made and bringing it back at the next board meeting,” one alderman said; the motion to table passed and the item was continued to July 7.
