11/15/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I reach back and rescind a contract. He said the only actions required by the City had already occurred; therefore, there were no agreements to be affected -- by the charter amendment. He explained that the State would like to have the vote because of the possible impact of any litigation related to the contract. In response to another question by Mayor Keller, Mr. Sercombe explained that any litigation involved would probably cause a delay of at least a month, adding that even that short a delay would affect the construction sequence. Councilor Wooten stated that she supported the Historic Tree Amendment; she did not feel that supporters of that amendment were voting on the widening project. She felt that the two were separate issues. She said she supported holding a March election but would prefer the project to begin with either Phase II or III. She still felt that avenues were available for compromise or design such that the remaining units could be included in the State's Six-Year Transportation Plan. Ms. Wooten did not feel that a package on all three phases was appropriate, stating that the pUblic needed time to consider the entire project. She felt that the City Council should become more involved in design work with the State and the staff. Councilor Obie said that the primary players in the process were the citizens of Eugene. He stressed that a vote by the people was imperative before any action was taken. He said it was necessary to provide direction to staff and to educate the pUblic on the entire project. He said he favored the March election based on time and cost considerations. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the City Council tentatively schedule an election for March 26, 1985, that staff research and report back to the council the issues regarding the e potential scheduling of Phases II and III, and that the City open discussion with Lane Community College and the Eugene school districts on the potential of voting by mail. Councilor Schue said she supported the motion, stating that a vote of the people was necessary. She did not believe that the Historic Tree Ordinance had made the decision on the widening project. She agreed that a March date for the election was appropriate; she also supported investigating the possi- bility of a vote by mail. Councilor Ehrman said one of the individuals testifying stressed the need to seek common ground with the voters. She said she would support having an advisory vote on the entire project in conjunction with the March vote on Phase I. She said this would inform the voters of whether the widening project would be constructed. Councilor Holmer supported Ms. Ehrman's suggestion of an advisory vote in conjunction with the March election. He said he supported the motion because making a tentative decision on a March election was appropriate. He said the election should incorporate consideration of the entire project. Councilor Hansen said he supported the motion. He felt that staff had ade- quate time to develop information on Phases II and III so that an actual vote on those phases could be held in March. He urged staff to proceed with that study. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1984 Page 8