01/11/1989 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e serial levy disapproval, project disapproval and serial levy approval, or project and serial levy approval. Mr. Boles felt the first outcome would require conversion to a commercial project. Ms. Ehrman disagreed with Mr. Boles interpretation and said the voters could be indicating approval of the Library with another source of operation and maintenance funding. Mr. Rutan opposed referring a decision on the project because he thought voters need to know the cost before being asked to approve a project. Recalling the Nuclear Free Zone issue, he said two questions on a single issue is not practical. Ms. Schue said the community has not indicated whether it wants a new Library on the proposed site or any other site. Mr. Bennett concurred with Mr. Rutan's observations, and said the council should have confidence in its own analysis which led to the conclusion that relative costs require a new Library to be sited as proposed or not to be constructed at this time. Ms. Bascom preferred obtaining community approval of the council1s choice of site, but she continued to question whether there should be a single ballot with two questions. Mr. Boles responded that he did not advocate seeking voter approval of the compl~ funding scheme but on the siting of the Library and he asked about combining questions on a ballot measure. e Mr. Gleason explained that two questions cannot be asked in a single ballot measure, but it would be possible to structure the question to ask for a serial levy for a library on a particular site. Ms. Ehrman commented that the operating and maintenance question affects some people's choice of site and she favored Mr. Boles. suggestion to separate the questions. Mr. Bennett encouraged the council not to lose a good development opportunity and he felt the council had adequate information to make its decision. Mr. Holmer suggested that the council consider delaying its decision a few days while deciding what to refer to the voters. Ms. Schue said she favored reaching a decision during the evening because the ballot deadline is January 28. e Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to continue negotiations with Pankow Development on financing of construction costs and parking improvements, disposition of real property, and construction of the library shell at the 8th and Willamette site; to take whatever actions are necessary to finalize these negotiations by January 31, 1989; and, to bring by that time to the council and Urban Renewal Agency Board for approval, the actions necessary to implement the understandings reached in those negotiations; and that this be referred in a March election to the voters of the city for confirmation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/ Work Session January 11, 1989 Page 9