Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> e Mr. Boles questioned whether this document can constrain public voting to the <br /> creation or expansion of existing urban renewal districts and thereby <br /> eliminate any consideration of this on a project-by-project basis. Mr. <br /> Sercombe said that if a project were inconsistent with the objectives of an <br /> existing plan, then a substantial change to the objectives would need to be <br /> made for project authorization. Policies within the framework of the <br /> existing or updated plan would not require a public vote. <br /> Mr. Holmer warned the council that if they do not take the time to offer an <br /> alternative draft to COFACT representatives, the council will risk facing a <br /> more restrictive measure. <br /> Ms. Schue indicated that she is prepared to take such a risk. If COFACT <br /> chooses to circulate a more restrictive measure, she believes that such a <br /> measure would be more easily defeated. <br /> Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to refer to the voters <br /> the revised proposal prepared by COFACT. The motion failed, 5:3, <br /> with Councilors Holmer, Boles, and Bascom voting in favor, and <br /> Councilors Green, Ehrman, Rutan, Schue, and Bennett voting <br /> opposed. <br /> Ms. Ehrman stressed to the council that it was a defect in the system that <br /> allowed a citizen1s initiative petition to bypass legal analysis, and the <br /> council should consider changing this process in the future. <br /> e The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. <br /> Respectfully SUb~ <br /> ~~~ <br /> Mich el Gleason <br /> City Manager <br /> (Recorded by Traci Northman) <br /> MNCC 102589 <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1989 Page 7 <br />