03/06/1991 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e paratory information gathering, schedule a workshop for public review, and, based on that input, work on a more detailed process design. II. BALLOT TITLE APPEAL: DOWNTOWN DESIGN e City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Bill Gary, City Attorney's Office, gave the staff presentation. He reviewed the process and criteria for ballot title preparation and appeal, contained in Section 2.977 of the Eugene City Code. He noted that City Code criteria for ballot title creation is superseded by State law. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 250.035 stipulates that the ballot title must contain a caption of 10 or less words which rea- sonably identifies the subject matter of the measure; a question of 20 words or less which plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure; and a concise and impartial statement of 85 words or less which summarizes the measure and its major effect. Mr. Gary said that the ballot title that has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office complies with statutory requirements; the bal- lot title alternative submitted by the appellant also meets those criteria. Responding to question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Gary said there is no legal re- quirement mandating that fiscal impacts be included in the measure. If such information is not included in a measure, it has been the City's past prac- tice to communicate this information during the public information process. He noted that it has not been his practice to include the fiscal impacts of a measure in the ballot title unless such impacts are included in the measure itself. Richard Miller, ballot title appellant, summarized his reasons for ballot title appeal. Responding to a question, Mr. Gary said that this appeal does not constitute a quasi-judicial proceeding, but rather a legislative proceeding. Therefore quasi-judicial procedures do not apply in this instance. Mr. Miller asked councilors to disclose any ex-parte contacts they may have had with other councilors or staff members. Mr. Gary clarified that the public meetings law applies to all deliberations taking place during this meeting. Mr. Gleason recommended that the council follow its normal proceedings with this meeting. Mr. Miller said that he believes he is entitled to a judiCial decision on this matter. He requested that Mayor Miller ask councilors to disclose all ex-parte contacts, the substance of those conversations, and the effect of those conversations on their opinions about this issue. Responding to a question from Mayor Miller, Mr. Gary reiterated that because this is a legislative proceeding, the council is neither prohibited nor re- quired to disclose ex-parte contacts. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 6, 1991 Page 2