Laserfiche WebLink
Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Lidz said that the question should plainly phrase <br />the chief purpose of the measure so that an affirmative response to the question corresponded to <br />an affirmative vote on the measure. He confirmed that the appeal concerned a referendum, not <br />an initiative. If the proponents of the reference obtain a sufficient number of signatures before <br />the ordinance would take effect, the ordinance will not take effect. He acknowledged that other <br />jurisdictions addressed the question differently, but there was not much guidance in the law. Mr. <br />Lidz believed that the appropriate question to ask the voters was, "Shall the ordinance be made <br />effective?"; a vote for the referendum would be a vote for the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said he found the text prepared by the City Attorney's Office confusing. He would <br />prefer to have the ballot title indicate it was a repeal of a smoking prohibition, and the explanation <br />be enhanced with the history of the council's actions. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Pat Cookson, 2350 Oakmont Way, said the appeal was filed because of concern that the title <br />would be misunderstood. She thought a history of the ordinance might be helpful to the voting <br />public so it understood what it was being asked to vote on, as well as a history of the process <br />that led up to the ballot measure. She thought that there might be confusion over the concept of <br />referendum and repeal. Ms. Cookson stressed that people need to understand if the measure <br />does not pertain to bar/restaurant combinations or only to bars, or the definition of an "adult only" <br />establishment of the types mentioned. She said that was not addressed in the materials she had <br />seen. <br /> <br />Ward Chase Fairbom, 5050 East 13th Avenue, said that the explanation seemed somewhat <br />fuzzy only because the law was passed in three ordinances on two separate days. Regarding <br />bar/restaurant combinations, Mr. Fairborn said the second ordinance passed by the council would <br />require those with such an establishment to provide a physical barrier between the bar and <br />restaurant. Part 3 of the law did not pertain to places with open walk-throughs between two <br />sides. According to the second ordinance, people with such establishments would have to <br />provide a two-door breezeway or wall between the bar and restaurant. <br /> <br />Mr. Fairborn suggested that either the question or explanation be enhanced by the statement that <br />the smoking ban was a workplace safety smoking ban to help the opposition feel more <br />comfortable that the ordinance addressed the general public and people who worked in such <br />establishments. He suggested "Should the City's workplace smoking ban extend to include bars, <br />taverns, cocktail lounges, bingo parlors, and other places where people over the age of 18 only <br />can go?" Otherwise, Mr. Fairborn felt that the question and explanation were clear and concise <br />as written. He commended the City Attorney's Office for the work done on the title. <br /> <br />Dr. Anthony DeSiena, 1940 Parliament Street, disagreed with Mr. Fairborn about the issue of <br />separation between attached bars and restaurant. He said if Mr. Fairborn's statement regarding <br />the issue were true, why were restaurants mentioned in Part 3 at all? He said that the way the <br />ballot title was written, it was not clear as to what happened under a yes vote or a no vote. <br />There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked if the petition circulation needed to await the appeal. Mr. Lidz said no. The <br />petition supporters could have begun to collect signatures already. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 29, 2000 Page 2 <br />Special Public Hearing <br /> <br /> <br />