Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly said he would like input from legal counsel as to how the council could best clarify the <br />ambiguity about bar/restaurant attachments. He did not think any of the versions of the ballot title <br />addressed the subject. Mr. Kelly believed there was clear direction in Ordinance 2 that <br />encompassed bar/restaurant attachments, and asked how best to clarify the issue. Mr. Lidz <br />suggested that the council consider passing a subsequent ordinance. He said he had <br />considered the appellants' comments regarding the ambiguity surrounding bars that are inside <br />restaurants, but the purpose of the referendum was to vote on the ordinance, not to interpret the <br />ordinance or another related ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that the form of the ballot title was dictated by State law and the issue before the <br />council was how to ensure the text was most straightforward. He liked the approach to the <br />affirmative nature of the question the City Attorney's Office had taken in preference to, for <br />example, the approach taken by Central Point. Mr. Kelly said that the revised ballot title <br />developed by Mr. Lidz was an improvement over the previous title as it mentioned the ordinance <br />and was straightforward about the consequences of the vote. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor preferred the caption and question for "B" and the explanation for "A". <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner preferred the question for "B" and objected to the caption in "A" as misleading. He <br />said he liked the explanation for "A," suggesting the addition of text from "B" regarding the <br />council's adoption of the ordinance as an important piece of history. He agreed with Mr. Lidz that <br />the ballot title was not the appropriate place to clarify the question of attached bars/restaurants. <br />He thought the lack of clarity unfortunate and hoped the council could act to rectify it soon. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson preferred the caption, question, and explanation in "B." She supported changing <br />the explanation with text indicating what a citizen's vote meant. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved that the City use version "B" <br /> for ballot title question and explanation. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart thought the council was over complicating a relatively simple issue. He said the <br />referendum would make it to the ballot and he did not think it mattered what the council did to <br />change it. <br /> <br />Responding to a suggestion from Ms. Bettman that the question be modified to read "Shall <br />prohibition on smoking in public work places be expanded?", Mr. Lidz was not sure that <br />accurately reflected the council's ordinance and he believed that the phrase could be <br />misinterpreted upon first reading. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the motion to use <br /> the question in "A" and caption in "B." <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the question in "A," Mr. Lidz thought the "A" <br />version was legally sufficient. <br /> Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to call the question. Roll call <br /> vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 29, 2000 Page 3 <br />Special Public Hearing <br /> <br /> <br />