08/16/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL e August 16, 1976 Special meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on August 16, 1976 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Gus Keller, Eric Haws, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Neil Murray, and Edna Shirey. Council members Ray Bradley and D.W.Hamel were absent. The meeting was called for the purpose of considering Charter revision and whether to refer a revised Charter to the voters at a September election or some subsequent date. Other items were also considered. I - Public Hearing A. Liquor License - New outlet The Steakery, 1775 West 6th Avenue - DA (Class A Dispensers) Larry and Sandra Bliss Manager reviewed the OLCC report which indicated two objectors, nine non- objectors. Staff had no objections. Public hearin~ was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to recommend approval of the application. Motion carried unanimously. e II - Charter Revision Corum A. Final Draft 8/11/76 Charter Revision - Charter draft has been distributed to Council, updated as of August 9. Four matters remain to be discussed - freeway amendment, garbage, penalties for violating city ordinances, and collective bargaining. Memos outlining suggested rewording on those four subjects have also been distributed to Council. Mrs. Shirey, who served on the freeway subcommittee, noted that the changes to Section 41 (1) are mostly for purposes of clarification. New wording in the last half of subsection 1 has been substituted for the former Section 2 which said that "approval by the voters shall be obtained, after publication of the notices, plans, and maps required by this Act, within one year prior to any agr~ement approving or facilitating construction, or the commencement of actual construction". Mrs. Shirey said the one-year time element has been removed because, after talking with Public Works, it was felt that one year was not a reasonable amount of time from ballot measure passage to signing of the contracts. .The concern was that the public did not want to give an open-ended approval for freeway construction - i.e. giving the go-ahead to build and then not having any recourse after that. By putting a time limit on the ballot for each project, the voters can assess that time element and vote accordingly. Mrs. Shirey stated the rewording also stipulates that the city could "plan such a thoroughfare and prepare specifications for its construction and statements of its impact. " . The public also was concerned with that as they did not favor extensive design - work if the project is terminated. Subsection 2 streamlines the type and amount of information that is required to be published in the newspaper. Monte Marshall, 1865 E. 28th, pointed out that the first part of subsection 1 says that any proposed route must first be approved by a majority of the voting Lj/~ 8/16/76 - 1