04/09/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~-_._------....~-----------------------------~.- --- ---- -- -----~-- 'Mayor Anderson fel t that any Council member who thinks the Charter amendment as it now reads is a satisfactory document should so indicate at this point. There was no response. -l Councilman McDonald asked for interpretation of the word "thoroughfare" as it appears I in the amendment. Mayor answered that it appeared from the outline presented by the : Ci ty Attorney, tha t defini tion would have to be determined by the courts. ,..-" ~ City Attorney expressed concern with regard to the generality and ambiguity of the wording. He said as a matter of deductive reasoning one could conclude that the I sponsors of the amendment intended it to be workable, if possible, and had a fairly restrictive measure in mind. But whether they were speaking of highway, freeway, or throughway in the sense of an expressway or a modern freeway with fairly limited access cannot be determined by any definition in the amendment itself. : Councilman Murray supported the amendment but recogn;J.zed procedural ambigui ties ! which need cl,arification. He favored proceeding at the earliest possible date with . a court test if that appeared the only way to obtain clarification. Although Councilman Williams did not agree on support of the amendment, he did feel a CXlurt 1 test desirllble ,to determine the meaning of the terms. Councilman Wood felt the amendment sponsQ.rs,qp~rhaps were not so much concerned wi th cost of freeway-type roads as with the sociological impact of a thoroughfare through a neighborhood. He thought a meeting 'between the Council and the sponsors would be beneficial to de- termine a defini tion or specifics of the original Concerns. Councilman McDonald sug- gested the matter of interpretation should be reviewed by a Council subcommdttee. . i Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the' Council instruct staff. to . commence appropriate litigation to interpret this Charter amendment in such : particulars as set forth in the memo from the City Attorney and such others that would help clarify the ambiguities in the amendment. . In making the motion, Mi. Hershner stated there didn't seem to be an alternative because the amendment is ther~ and it appears the only way to determine its meaning is with a court test. Councilwoman Beal felt a meeting of the City Attorney with the sponsors' attorney before authorizing litigation would be of more value. Mr. Hershner replied that it was not the intent of his motion that litigation start immediately without benefit of thorough resea,rgh and background work. - Orval Etter, City Attorney's office, informed the Council that litigation could in- volve higher than circuit court filing in t,ha absence of "crystal claar" decision at the lowar level. Ha said the issue touchas on "what is intended" or "logic or implicatJons of language used," and is something wrestled with for many years. For that reason every angle will be explored to try to arrive at the proper inter- pretation. He had the impression the proponents do not feel it is ambiguous, but even shoulq they and City staff arrive at an agreement on the amendment's meaning, there is the ppssibility that some single individual not involved in the clarifica- tion'may be jJggrieved and file a lawsuit. So a court determination to give legal basis seems desirable. :- ......-;:--~ Mrs. Beal agreed with Mr. Etter's reasoning and suggested that he be authorized to proceed wi th legal research. Mrs. Campbell fel t a sense of urgency because of pending land use legislation and necessity for regional transportation planning. She did think however that in the purchase of land for. the Amazon Parkway the City should state that it is being purchased for that right~of-way. :She along with Councilman McDonald expressed concern that the Council is accused of dishonesty in its effort to resolve traffic~moving problems'. Councilman Hershner repeated that it was not his intent to immediately file a suit 'without legal research and he would favor any effort the Council' could make to assist in clarifying the ambiguities. But he noted Mr. Etter's doubts that extensive re- search would be conclusive. Mr. Hershner said it is critical to obtain a decision as soon as possible and suggested filing the complaint to get it on the court calendar, with research to proceed in the time before the case is heard. " Manager thought the Amazon Parkway West was a good illustration of the problem faced _ the City Attorney indicates a very real question whether the design,of that facility as has been envisioned in the past would require a vote under this Charter amendment. Yet proponents of the Charter amendment emphatically say it would require a vote. Because of tha diversity of people involved in promotion of the amendment it would be difficult to determine who would define the proponents' intent. And there still remains the question of procedural problems which will be encountered under-the amendment. Public Works Director pointed up the task of constructing roads and fulfilling the impact statement requirements in view of the time required for design, , right-of-way purchase, and other phases which cannot be determined by vote. ep Ed Kenyon, Register-Guard reporter, asked if the staff has considered the possibility of drafting legislation they felt would be workable yat which generally followed the , desires of theorigina~ drafters of the Charter ~ndment to be submitted to the voters. l: lo"3 4/9/73 - 6